Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Development Districts

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultations he has, and with whom, before taking an area from the list of areas receiving assistance under the Local Employment Act, 1960;
(2) how often reviews take place of the list of areas receiving assistance under the Local Employment Act, 1960.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Board of Trade keeps the list of development districts continuously under review and consults the Ministry of Labour and other interested Departments before any changes are decided upon.

Mr. Grey: Is the Minister aware of the great dissatisfaction caused by the fact that a number of areas have been taken off the list? Is he aware that no reason at all seems to be given when an area is removed from the list? The right hon. Gentleman talks about jobs in prospect as the reason for areas being descheduled. Should not the only criteria be jobs in actual fact before such a decision is taken? Can we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman has not been dictated to by the Treasury in removing these places from the list?

Mr. Erroll: I am not sure whether the hon. Member has in mind the stop list or the actual descheduling. We deschedule areas when we are satisfied that enough has been done or will be done for a locality to make it unnecessary for it still to remain a development district.

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance is given to firms wishing to set up industries within reach of development districts; and whether he is satisfied with the volume of such assistance.

Mr. Erroll: Under the Local Employment Act, localities to which workers living in a development district can conveniently travel to work are themselves deemed to be development districts. Firms setting up in these localities can therefore obtain financial assistance to the extent to which their projects are likely to benefit a development district. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Milne: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the areas of the development districts; that is to say, instead of using the present method, will he consider, for instance, regarding the whole of the south-east of Northumberland as a development district so that there is some inducement and greater attraction to industrialists who are moving in, who would certainly have greater scope in which to look at the relocation of new industries?

Mr. Erroll: I appreciate the principles which underlie the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. But I feel that that would be to go back to the concept prior to the passage of the 1960 Act, which was fully debated in the House, when the House agreed that we should move to the idea of development districts and concentrate on areas where unemployment was highest.

Mr. Milne: While I appreciate that reply, the fact still remains that the method he is defending—we are not really complaining about it, but rather asking him to look at an alternative—is not providing the goods in the way we wanted? Some further examination is obviously needed. Will he make it?

Mr. Erroll: There are special difficulties in the area in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, but over the country as a whole the new arrangements are working well. The reason I say this is because we want to get the factories as near as possible to where the unemployment exists.

Monopolies and Restrictive Practices

Mr Walker: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to complete his review of policy relating to monopolies and restrictive practices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Erroll: As I told the House on 14th February, I doubt whether the review of this complex subject will be completed before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Butler, Question No. 5.

Mr. Lipton: Instead of the feeble and flabby approach—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman. I called somebody else.

Mr. Hirst: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to empower the courts to order business companies to divest themselves of such part or parts of their commercial activities as may be necessary to bring them within the limits permitted under existing provisions of laws relating to monopolies.

Mr. Erroll: No limits are set by existing legislation in this country to the size of the activities of business companies. The subject raised in my hon. Friend's question is being covered by the comprehensive review of monopolies and restrictive practices legislation now being undertaken by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Hirst: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that he himself has just admitted that he has no power, even dif it were desired, to carry out the recommendations of the Commission? If he will not introduce legislation to deal with the matter, will not the Government find time—or will he ask his right hon. Friend to provide time—for the Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman), myself and others?

Mr. Erroll: I have noted the suggestion about the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) asked leave to introduce.

Mr. Lipton: The right hon. Gentleman does not like it.

Mr. Hirst: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he now has to make the control of monopolies more effective.

Mr. Erroll: I would ask my hon. Friend to wait until the review of the policy and legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices by my officials has been completed.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he calls his powers of persuasion are peculiarly ineffective and that we need something in the meantime?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think my hon. Friend would thank me for introducing bad or unsatisfactory legislation in a hurry to avoid the taunts of the Opposition who say that they are having to wait too long.

Mr. Thorpe: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Report of Mr. Sich, the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements, which was published in January? Has he noted that of the 25 industries which he has investigated 18 are running practices contrary to the consumer, but that in only one case have the Government taken any action at all. Why are they so disinclined to take action?

Mr. Erroll: I think that is another question.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us on this side of the House told our electors at the last General Election that we were very strongly opposed to both public and private monopolies, and that we are getting a little concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Orpington."]—at the apparent lack of enthusiasm in opposing monopolies shown by my right hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Erroll: It is not a case of enthusiasm or the lack of it. I deplore a witch-hunt into monopoly, as such, equally as much as I would deplore a situation in which my Department was not going into this whole question. I am sure that the right way is to review the whole matter thoroughly and then decide what should be done, if necessary.

Mr. Jay: If the President of the Board of Trade will not heed the taunts of the Opposition, will he heed the taunts of the electorate?

Mr. Erroll: I am aware that there is a certain amount of concern about monopoly properly expressed in this House and reflected also among the electorate.

Advance Factory, Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade when work will begin on the erection of the advance factory at Shotts.

Mr. Erroll: As soon as we have acquired a suitable site.

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is over a year since the announcement was made that an advance factory was to be built in Shotts? Is he aware that since that time a private firm, without any aid from the Board of Trade, found a site there and erected a small factory, where girls have been working for months, while the Board of Trade could find no site? Is it that the trustees of the Robert Sneddon Estate are holding back the acquiring of a site? What compulsory purchase measures can the right hon. Gentleman take to bring work to an area which only this year had its eleventh pit closed?

Mr. Erroll: One of the difficulties of building advance factories is to know in advance what is the most suitable size. The factory to which the hon. Lady refers is very small, and I do not think it would please her or her constituents if we put up a small one. I regret the delay as much as anybody does. The hon. Lady knows the difficulty. The people to whom she has referred are the people who caused the difficulties, but I do not think that it would be right to use compulsory powers to acquire land for a factory which will not necessarily be occupied immediately.

Miss Herbison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of any advance factory built which has not been occupied? When a Government-owned factory became vacant in Shotts there were a number of people who wished to have it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that there would be no delay in having such a factory occupied. Is he not aware of the great need for it?

Mr. Erroll: It is not necessarily so. An advance factory at Jarrow still remains unoccupied.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is not prepared to use compulsory powers in respect of any advance factory? If so, this would be a policy quite different from that followed up to now.

Exports

Sir H. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms exported their goods for the first time in 1961; and what was the value of their contribution.

Mr. Erroll: I regret that this information is not available.

Sir H. Harrison: My right hon. Friend devotes an enormous amount of time and energy to exports. Would not something like this be very valuable? Will he consult the chambers of commerce and chambers of trade, and possibly write again to the 30,000 firms he circularised in his previous campaign?

Mr. Erroll: I have thought a good deal about this matter, and I doubt whether the effort involved in collecting this information would yield information of sufficient value to help the export drive. The circular letter campaign has been successful. We are engaged now in the second round. No less than 9,000 firms replied to our circulars in the first round, and 6,000 asked for information about Government services, although some were already exporters.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is yet one more piece of evidence that his Department treats potential exporting companies in a very casual way? Is he further aware that he gave me almost the same answer a few months ago in connection with a small firm which might be brought into the export drive? Surely the export figures published last night should not leave him with any sense of satisfaction?

Mr. Erroll: I am certainly not complacent about the export drive, but I doubt whether this particular type of information, which would be laborious to collect, would be of any practical value. By circularising firms we reach all those interested or likely to be interested in exporting. I believe that to be the best way.

East Germany

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the results of the consultations he has had with the Federation of British Industries concerning quotas governing trade with East Germany in 1962.

Mr. Erroll: The results are reflected in the unofficial trade arrangements for 1962 recently concluded by the Federation of British Industries with the East German Chamber of Foreign Trade. This provides for United Kingdom exports to East Germany of £8·4 million and for United Kingdom imports of £9·1 million, both totals being the same as in the 1961 trade arrangement.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with these figures, in view of the fact that West Germany's trade with East Germany totals about £88 million a year compared with our figure of £8 million? In view of the drive West Germany is making to get East German trade, should not we be doing something to match her aggressive selling?

Mr. Erroll: Our exporters are doing what they can, but we must remember that the East Germans are not prepared to grant us bigger quotas than the figures I have indicated.

Mr. Jeger: How much of the amount mentioned covers commission at ¼ per cent.? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any quota of political contact men engaged in this trade?

European Economic Community

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade what effect the United Kingdom's entry into the Corn-man Market will have on the trade relations of the United Kingdom with other countries who are signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Erroll: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to him on 1st March.

Sir L. Plummer: But that was not a satisfactory Answer. That is why I tabled the Question again. What will the Government do, under their undertaking, as a signatory of G.A.T.T., that all the other signatories should be treated

equally? What consideration has been given to these undertakings in our discussions with the Common Market countries?

Mr. Erroll: I have glanced again quickly at my Answer of 1st March, and I think that it was a very good one. But I will do my best to give further details in writing, if possible by letter to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Stross: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there might be some complication in view of the fact that Czechoslovakia is a member of G.A.T.T.?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, and she has, of course, broken a number of G.A.T.T. rules.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what detailed examination has been made, or reports and information received, concerning the probable effect on light industries, in particular those producing umbrellas and vacuum flasks, of the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Erroll: My Department is in regular contact with British industry including the industries mentioned by the hon. Member. Representatives of the British umbrella industry have welcomed the prospect of entry into the Common Market; I have received no suggestion that entry would cause difficulties for the British vacuum flask makers. But the effects of accession to the European Economic Community would vary not only between industries but from firm to firm within an industry.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that a careful examination has been made of this category of light industries and that the employers and firms in those industries are fully acquainted with the information the right hon. Gentleman has gathered?

Mr. Erroll: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, generally speaking the answer is "Yes", but as regards each light industry I would not like to answer in detail a specific question; but the Answer I have given in respect of the umbrella makers, I think, shows how far we have gone into finding the opinions of individual light industries.

Imperial Tobacco Company (Gallahers)

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to comply with the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission, he will instruct the Imperial Tobacco Company Limited to distribute its shareholding of Gallahers Limited amongst its ordinary shareholders.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: In fact, even if my right hon. Friend bad proved willing, has he the power so to do? If not, can he see that Government time is found for the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman)?

Mr. Erroll: What my right hon. Friend says is quite correct. I do not possess the statutory power to implement the recommendation in the way suggested by the Monopolies Commission. But there are many ways of acting in addition to the use of statutory power. One such way is by persuasion, and I think that a company of this standing might well have accepted the Government's wishes in this matter had I wished to ask it to divest itself of shareholdings.

Mr. Lipton: Why should the Government generally be frightened of tobacco companies? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not summon up sufficient courage to ask them to do the right thing? Will not he take a lesson from the United States, where the anti-monopoly legislation is very much more effective?

Mr. Erroll: I bad all the courage required, and I used it. I asked the firm to give an undertaking, and it has given it. That is what I wanted.

Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now refer the production of man-made fibres to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Tapsell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large shareholding in Courtaulds Limited being acquired by Imperial

Chemical Industries Limited, he will refer the man-made fibres industry for examination by the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Erroll: On the information at present available to me, I do not propose to refer man-made fibres to the Monopolies Commission.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: In view of the fact that Courtaulds already holds 83 per cent. of the capacity in this industry and has just, by the skin of its teeth, escaped being absorbed, does not my right hon. Friend think that there is a prima facie case for such a reference in case another take-over bid occurs?

Mr. Erroll: No. One has to have regard to the reasons for making references to the Monopolies Commission. We have not received any suggestions so far that the monopoly conditions are being abused.

Mr. Tapsell: If my right hon. Friend will not refer the industry to the Monopolies Commission, will he at least secure from the board of I.C.I. an undertaking, similar to that which he got from the board of the Imperial Tobacco Company, in respect of its holding in Courtalds? Does he not agree that the relationship of I.C.I. to Courtaulds will be very similar to that between the Imperial Tobacco Company and Gallahers?

Mr. Erroll: The relationship will be rather different. In any case, I will not answer that supplementary question, because I.C.I.'s shareholders are to be addressed by their chairman tomorrow.

Mr. Jay: As the I.C.I. holding in Courtaulds is exactly the same as that of the Imperial Tobacco Company in Gallahers, why not ask I.C.I. for similar assurances?

Mr. Erroll: I do not see that the evidence produced so far by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my right hon. and hon. Friends shows any reason for me to go rushing around asking for these assurances.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Besides his limited statutory duties and powers, surely my right hon. Friend also has responsibility for what I might call the general health and competitiveness of British industry?

Mr. Erroll: Certainly, and I shall, therefore, follow the proceedings of tomorrow's shareholders' meeting with the greatest interest.

Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend is doing his job and Mr. Paul Chambers is doing his. Why does my right hon. Friend try to hand his job over to Mr Chambers?

Mr. Warbey: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the new circumstances created by Courtaulds' promises in response to the take-over bid of 65 per cent. increase in distributed profits this year and a 105 per cent. increase in such dividends next year, which conflicts with Her Majesty's Government's policy for continued restraint in profits and dividends, as set out in the White Paper on Incomes Policy: The Next Step, why he is not prepared to reconsider his decision not to order a public inquiry into the proposed merger of Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds.

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has studied the new promises made in response to the threat of a take-over bid by Courtaulds for increased dividend payments in the next two years; and, in view of the fact that these new proposals are contrary to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on profits and dividends, as set out in the White Paper entitled Incomes Policy. The Next Step, if he will reconsider his decision not to hold a public inquiry into the proposed merger of Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds.

Mr. Erroll: The proposals announced by Courtaulds do not, in my view, constitute any grounds for changing the Government's decision, the reasons for which I explained to the House on 14th February.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a meeting held today in another part of this city the Chancellor's White Paper on Incomes Policy was torn to shreds and thrown into the wastepaper basket? Is there not something grossly indecent in the Government doing down the railway workers and the university teachers to a miserable 3 per cent. increase after two years' waiting, while doing nothing about these

fantastic and flaunted increases in distributed profits?

Mr. Erroll: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. and learned Friend said about profits and dividends. He made it clear that there was no intention of limiting the profits of individual industries or dividends paid by them, but that, as part of the long-term incomes policy, appropriate corrective action would be taken if aggregate profits showed signs of increasing excessively compared with wages and salaries.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not the case that Courtaulds, in order to survive, has had to make the most lavish promises of dividend increases not only for this year but for next year? Is not this an open defiance of the Government's policy of income restraint? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to plan the economy by holding wages down while allowing private industry to snap its fingers in the face of the Government? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Erroll: I remind the hon. Lady that the profits of many firms and industries are falling—and dividends with them.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Courtaulds would not have made these promises if he had done his duty and had stopped I.C.I. from making this bid? Is he aware that ordinary workers feel that it is grossly unfair to put restrictions on them and then, because of his inactivity, force the directors of Courtaulds to promise dividends that they did not wish to pay? Will he do something about this?

Mr. Erroll: I think that I made the position of the Government clear during the debate on this issue.

Mr. Darling: Is the increase in dividends now to be given by Courtaulds in line with Government policy? If it conflicts with Government policy, what will the right hon. Gentleman do about it?

Mr. Erroll: I thought I had explained the Government's policy in this matter.

Sir C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will exercise his powers under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, to protect


minority interests of shareholders of Courtaulds affected by the offer made by Imperial Chemical Industries.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. There seems to be no minority which needs protection.

Sir C. Osborne: That is fortunate for the country, but not due to my right hon. Friend's inaction. Is he aware that his inaction is giving the impression that he is putting private gain in front of the public interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and since he asked the tobacco people not to use their 37 per cent. minority vote to impede the action of the directors running the tobacco company, why cannot he ask I.C.I. to give the same guarantee to Courtaulds?

Mr. Speaker: That is to ask a question that has been asked already.

Sir C. Osborne: But we have not had an answer to it, Mr. Speaker. I regard it as of great importance in the national interest.

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to go on asking the same question because one does not get an answer. It is out of order. The early part of this is a different matter.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir C. Osborne: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest moment on the Motion for the Adjournment because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply.

Hire-Purchase

Mr. Awbery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that many hire-purchase agreements are framed in such a way as to deceive the purchasers of goods concerning the hire-purchase charges, in addition to persuading people to buy things they cannot afford; and if he will take steps to make it compulsory for every such agreement to contain, in clear figures, both the price of the article and the added amount of purchase charges.

Mr. Erroll: When I receive the Report of the Molony Committee on consumer protection, I will consider whether some reinforcement of the present statutory protection for hire-purchase customers is necessary.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that these documents are printed in such legal terms that the ordinary purchaser cannot understand them and that it is easy for a glib canvasser to explain them to prospective purchasers and get them to buy goods they cannot afford? Is he also aware that in a case which has been brought to my attention a man purchased an article for £30 and had to pay an additional £15 by way of charges? Will he look into this case and see what he can do to stop it?

Mr. Erroll: I should be very glad to study the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers if he would care to forward the details to me. The Molony Committee is or has been studying these very matters.

Mr. Mitchison: If the right hon. Gentleman spends too long waiting for Molony he will find that the hire-purchase companies and the people who buy their goods broke? Is it not time to hurry up Molony?

Mr. Erroll: The Molony Committee is working hard and well. I do not think it should be hurried up, because I want the Report to be a good one when we get it. I do not think the finance companies or the people who use them are in any danger of going broke.

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent court decisions on hire-purchase contracts, disagreements among members of the Finance Houses Association on car dealers' commissions, and growing public criticism of some hire purchase practices, he will inquire into these matters to see what changes are now needed in the Hire-Purchase Acts in the public interest.

Mr. Erroll: I am considering the implications of these decisions and will take them into account when I receive the Report of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection.

Mr. Darling: But in this case is not the President of the Board of Trade rather misunderstanding the functions of the Committee? Is it not a fact that the hire-purchase question was not specifically in its terms of reference? Is it not a fact that if we are going to have an


inquiry into these very technical hire-purchase problems we do not necessarily want to appoint the people who are on the Molony Committee? If the Committee does not produce a satisfactory report on hire-purchase, will not the right hon. Gentleman have to start all over again? Instead of waiting, why should he not do the job now?

Mr. Erroll: Because I want to see what the Molony Committee has to say. Then I can decide what further action, if any, is required. It would be very irresponsible if I were to embark upon piecemeal legislation or other forms of action which, on the publication of the Molony Committee Report, were proved to be either wrong or misplaced.

Mr. Darling: This is not a question of asking for piecemeal legislation. It is generally agreed throughout the country that the Hire-Purchase Acts, which were pre-war legislation, are now out of date, and no longer fit the circumstances of today, and that legislation will have to be introduced, anyhow. It is surely missing the point to refer to amending legislation on hire-purchase as piecemeal legislation.

Mr. Erroll: If hire-purchase legislation has to be introduced it is surely appropriate that it should be good legislation.

Tapestries

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the duty that is payable on imported modern tapestries, in view of the discrimination the present duty involves against this form of art.

Mr. Erroll: I am always prepared to consider applications from representative domestic interests for changes in the import duty on particular goods.

Cotton Industry

Sir J. Barlow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider further action by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that conditions are created under which the re-equipment of the cotton industry under the reorganisation scheme could be carried through to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Erroll: It is still too early to assess the full extent of re-equipment

but, as I informed my hon. Friend on 20th February, the limitations on imports of cloth from low-cost sources should encourage firms to take advantage of the financial help available under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959.

Sir J. Barlow: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his powers contained in the anti-dumping duties are sufficient to prevent very low cost textiles coming into this country?

Mr. Erroll: I have every reason to believe that the powers are sufficient.

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of future effects on the spinning and weaving sections of the cotton textile industry of entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Erroll: It is not possible at this stage to assess the effect on the cotton textile industry of entry into the Common Market. There is no doubt, however, that British entry into the Common Market would give the Lancashire industry opportunities for increasing exports to Europe.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I do not suppose for a moment that he is—that in Oldham, which was known before the Tories started passing amending Acts as the most prosperous cotton spinning town in the world, there is complete uncertainty about the situation, and that this uncertainty is having a devastating effect on the industry? It was no good him saying five minutes ago to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) that he hopes that this will give confidence, that this will give security, and that this will establish prospects, when nobody knows what is going to happen about imports of Commonwealth cloth, or about competition, or about the effect on wages, or about production.

Mr. Erroll: I only say briefly that there is nothing that is certain in this world.

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to provide that some of the unexpended allocated expenditure for the Cotton Industry Reorganisation Act is made available as compensation for workers who were made


redundant without qualifying for compensation.

Mr. Erroll: I presume that by "allocated expenditure" the hon. Member has in mind the figure of £30 million but, as my predecessors and I have repeatedly explained, this is simply the best estimate which could be made of likely total Government expenditure under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959. It is not an allocated or voted sum and the question of using an unexpended balance for other purposes does not arise.

Mr. Hale: If there is one thing that is certain in this world it is that the Prime Minister used the figure of £40 million. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister spoke of £40 million during the last election? In view of the necessity for election sweeteners at the moment, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he has £20 million of that £40 million unexpended, and that a lot of workers in the industry think that they were victims of something approaching a shocking swindle?

Mr. M. Foot: They are saving up £20 million for the next election.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend suggests that this might be used for the next Parliamentary election, but it may be that that will be too late.

Mr. Erroll: It could be that the hon. Gentleman is electioneering himself.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is not the right hon Gentleman aware that under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, the Government put forward in support of that legislation that it would be used for re-equipping the industry with new machinery and wiping out all the inefficient units of production which were an encumbrance to the industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much of the £30 million has been applied to the process of re-equipment? Will he now admit that the Cotton Industry Act. 1959, was nothing more than an elaborate piece of shop window dressing involving the use of £30 million of taxpayers' money as a bribe to Lancashire which was going through a bad time?

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Gentleman did not vote against the Bill when it was

passing through the House, nor did I notice that he was particularly against the proposal in his constituency at the time of the election. As regards re-equipment, we never said that the Government would be responsible for it. We said that we would make re-equipment grants available. So far £1·6 million has been spent on re-equipment, but this is far from being the final figure because applications can still come in. After applications have been made, there is a further periol for the spending of the money.

Textile Machinery

Sir J. Barlow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the present reduced home trade orders for textile machinery are likely to affect adversely export prospects of the United Kingdom textile machinery industry; and what action he proposes to take to improve the situation.

Mr. Erroll: I appreciate that the textile machinery industry, in planning their future production, may be concerned to know the likely demands for re-equipment at home. I hope that recent developments regarding imports of cotton textiles will create the necessary confidence to encourage the early placing of orders and so avoid any likelihood of uncertainty adversely affecting textile machinery exports.

Eggs and Egg Purchase

Mr. Hilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the continued dumping into this country of eggs and egg products from Poland, China and other countries; what applications he has received for anti-dumping measures to protect British egg-producers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. P. Browne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Egg Marketing Board has made an official application for an anti-dumping duty on Polish eggs coming into this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Erroll: I have nothing at present to add to the reply given on 5th March to a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport).

Mr. Hilton: Is it not a stupid policy for the President of the Board of Trade to allow the continuous dumping of eggs in this country to the detriment of home producers? Is he not aware that this policy is crippling many small home egg producers? Also, why did not the right hon. Gentleman agree to meet representatives of the egg producers who wished to discuss this matter with him? Finally, will he give an assurance that in future he will not allow eggs—or any other produce—to be dumped in this country when plenty are being produced by our home producers?

Mr. Erroll: As regards dumping, it would be a stupid policy if that was the one being followed, but there is no question of eggs being dumped all the year round, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. As regards the request of the chairman of the Egg Marketing Board to see me, I thought that as the information had already been made available to my Department and applications had been made for anti-dumping duties to be considered, it was best for those matters to be looked at rather than that they should be repeated to me while the applications were under consideration. As regards the policy of importing foodstuffs, that is a very wide question which I would rather see on the Order Paper.

Mr. P. Browne: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that every day's delay is making matters worse? Is not he aware that eggs are being dumped in this country, contrary to what he says? Would not he agree that what is wanted is action before these countries unload their spring flush on to this country, rather than after they have done so?

Mr. Erroll: It is not just a question of dumping, but also of material injury and of national interest. As regards frozen eggs, the application has already gone in in respect of eggs which have not arrived in this country, because the application relates to the egg year beginning 1st April, 1962. As regards foreign eggs at present coming into this country, total imports in January of this year were only a little over half for January of last year, and imports from Poland were less than one-sixth of what they were in January last year.

Sir H. Harrison: Is not this a case in which my right hon. Friend's hand ought

to be strengthened by further legislation so that he can act more quickly than he can under the present law?

Mr. Erroll: The law gives me the power to act quickly, provided I get information quickly. Some of the delays arise through the inability of the applicants, for one reason or another, to supply the information quickly, but I am answering this Question in general terms, and I do not want to be taken as implying criticism this year in respect of eggs.

Advance Factory, Milford Haven

Mr. Donnelly: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will authorise the building of an advance factory at Milford Haven.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. The prospects in this area have improved and I would not be justified in building another advance factory here at present.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the long-term prospects for this town have not improved, that the unemployment rate is about five times the national average, and that my constituents are tired of promises and no action? In these circumstances, can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is an objection to building an advance factory such as that in Pembrokeshire which is beginning to show prospects of a return on national investment?

Mr. Erroll: The reason is because we think that the prospects in the area have improved. Although the percentage of unemployment is high, the total numbers are not large. It would in any case be difficult to establish the right size of advance factory, and if an advance factory of the wrong size were built it might deter somebody from coming, though the full facilities of the Local Employment Act remain available as an inducement to any employer considering the area.

Mr. Eden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are other areas in which the spare labour capacity would be welcomed? Is not the easier solution for some of these people who are short of employment in one area to move to places where they are needed?

Mr. Erroll: They are free to move if they wish, but the purpose of the Act, and the way I administer it, is to bring work to people who are unemployed.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade if the terms of reference of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection enable it to consider and make recommendations concerning the examination by his Department of goods declared to be seriously defective by reputable consumers' organisations and the steps necessary to compel manufacturers either to rectify the defect or to compensate the purchasers when examination verifies the complaint.

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister's reply mean that the terms of reference of the Molony Committee allow for the possibility of a recommendation precisely on the lines of the proposals embodied in my Question?

Mr. Erroll: The Committee announced at the outset that it intended to consider, among other things, whether or not there should be
simpler means and/or more extensive rights for the aggrieved consumer seeking redress.

Advance Factory, Kilwinning

Mr. Manuel: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give favourable consideration to the building of an advance factory at the Kilwinning Industrial Estate.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. I do not think I would be justified in building an advance factory here at present.

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman knows of the outstanding success achieved by Irvine Town Council in attracting industry to its industrial estate—which is only three miles from Kilwinning—in my opinion largely because it had buildings available for industry to come right into the estate. In the light of representations that I have received, is the Minister prepared to meet a deputation of members of Ayr County Council, Kilwinning Town Council, the Irvine District Council and the local trades council in order that they can place their views before him?

Mr. Erroll: Either my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary or I will be very glad to receive a deputation at any time, but in view of the comparatively favourable projects which are under way in the area I cannot hold out any hope of special treatment for Kilwinning.

Mr. Baxter: In view of the suggested closure of almost 50 pits in Scotland in the near future, will the Minister consider the whole structure of Scotland's economy in order to see what can be done, from a planning point of view, before the pits are actually closed?

Mr. Erroll: I have been fully informed about the pit closures. The important thing is to try to get factories as near to the closures as possible in order to avert the unemployment which might otherwise arise.

Potatoes

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the National Farmers' Union for increased duties on imported potatoes for the period from July, 1962.

Mr. Erroll: The National Farmers' Union applied in October, 1960, for increases in the duty on new potatoes imported in the first half of May and in July. After full consideration, the Government decided that increases would not be justified and this application was accordingly rejected on 9th February last.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with our present support system one of the best ways of keeping down the cost of agricultural subsidies is not to allow too high an importation of goods at a time when home production is already very high?

Mr. Erroll: I am familiar with that point of view.

British Exhibition, Stockholm

Mr. Stodart: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms from Great Britain are going to exhibit their products at the British Exhibition at Stockholm in May; and how many of these firms are from Scotland.

Mr. Erroll: The British Exhibition in Stockholm is not organised by the


Board of Trade but by British Overseas Fairs Limited. I am informed by it that there will be about 520 exhibitors, of whom 16 give their address as in Scotland.

Mr. Stodart: Is it not very disappointing that there should be only 16 out of 520 exhibitors, especially in view of the high rate of unemployment in Scotland? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Scottish firms were sufficiently informed that this exhibition was taking place? Is he aware that the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry has stated that it was not asked on any occasion to use its offices to bring this exhibition to the notice of Scottish firms?

Mr. Erroll: Some Scottish firms may have used an English address in this matter.

Mr. Rankin: Name them.

Mr. Erroll: Some may have done so.

Mr. Rankin: Who are they?

Mr. Erroll: If Scottish firms had exhibited in the same proportion as English firms there would have been about 50 exhibitors. As for the use of the facilities offered by the bodies mentioned in my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the responsibility for organising this fair lies with British Overseas Fairs Limited.

Mr. Hoy: In view of this remarkable lack of enterprise by private enterprise in Scotland, will the Minister consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? If this sector of industry fails to provide employment for Scottish people the responsibility will have to be accepted to an increasing extent by public enterprise and the Government.

Educational Books and Films

Mr. Owen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to ensure the temporary free exchange, exempt from all customs and similar duties, of books, periodicals, papers, works of art, and documentary or cultural films, for educational and noncommercial purposes, in accordance with the Agreement on the importation of educational, scientific, and cultural

materials signed by Her Majesty's Government in New York in November, 1950.

Dr. H. King: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to facilitate the temporary free exchange between other countries and Great Britain of films for educational and non-commercial purposes.

Mr. Erroll: Under various statutory provisions, all articles covered by this Agreement may be imported free of Customs duty.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Customs officers are intepreting this rather unilaterally and applying it only to films produced under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O.? Is he aware that a number of useful films which are educational and non-commercial are made in various countries, and will he see that the Custom exemption applies over all?

Mr. Erroll: It would help if the hon. Gentleman would give me details of any specific cases.

Mrs. White: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this is extremely cumbersome and very expensive for organisations trying to bring educational matter into this country, and will he look at it again?

Mr. Erroll: The provisions are perhaps complicated in themselves and call for a good deal of detail. But I will look at the point.

United States (Tariffs)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the United Kingdom would benefit from tariff reductions made by the United States of America, as part of an agreement with the European Economic Community for reciprocal reductions, as a result of the application of the relevant most-favoured-nation clauses.

Mr. Erroll: Reductions in the United States Tariff to be made as a result of the agreement with the European Economic Community which was announced last week will apply also to imports from the United Kingdom and will affect goods of which our exports to the U.S.A. in 1959 amounted to over £100 million.

Mr. Jay: Is it perfectly clear, since there has been some doubt about it, that these American reductions in tariffs on European goods will be extended to British goods? Does this also apply to reductions in tariffs which the European countries are to make vis-à-vis United States?

Mr. Erroll: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes", although the full details are not yet available. I should like to look at the second part rather more carefully before answering.

Motor Vehicles (Electrical Equipment)

Sir B. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade how long the Monopolies Commission has had under consideration the reference relating to the supply of electrical equipment for mechanically propelled land vehicles; why it has taken many months to deal with this particular reference; and when their Report can be expected.

Mr. Erroll: This reference was made on 18th April, 1957. I understand that the Commission hope to make their report before the end of the year, and that the reason for the length of the inquiry has been the technical complexity of the subject.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the fact that the terms of reference were decided in 1957, does not the Minister think that a considerable length of time to have been taken, much longer than should have been the case? Is not the answer to increase the staff of the Monopolies Commission to deal with the matter?

Mr. Erroll: It is a very complicated investigation covering eight classes of goods and no less than four monopoly suppliers. The Commission says that it does not need additional staff.

Sir B. Janner: But is the Minister aware that it has taken five years?

Mr. Erroll: I can do my own arithmetic.

Rothes Colliery (Closure)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the immediate prospects of further industrial development in Glenrothes, Fife; and whether such development

will be sufficient to employ all those who will be redundant on the closure of the neighbouring Rothes colliery.

Mr. Erroll: I understand that of about 800 men employed at the Rothes colliery, the National Coal Board will be able to offer work immediately to some 300 in Rothes or nearby, and to about a further 350–400 in the Scottish coalfields within the period of redundancy-payments. The miners affected live in the areas covered by the Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline Groups of Employment Exchange Areas, where there are now in total some 1,500 jobs in prospect from new building and other developments. Of these, about 600 are for men.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, now that this colliery is to be murdered, that the chairman of the National Coal Board has said that 150 of these miners will not be able to get a job in coal mining anywhere in Scotland but will have to move to England, and that those who do get reemployment in Scotland will be employed at a greater distance from their homes and at less wages? Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland be much more energetic in bringing industry to this area? If private enterprise will not do so why will not the State provide industry for these men?

Mr. Erroll: The nationalised industry does not seem to be very successful in Glenrothes. Regarding the effort to bring industry to the area, I am proud of our record and I hope to improve on it.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Prime Minister and the Government to see whether £6 million could be invested in further exploiting the deep coal in Rothes in view of the grossly extravagant expenditure of the Government on less worth-while things?

Mr. Erroll: Questions about the colliery should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Mr. Ross: Surely the concern of the Minister must be about the effect of the closure of this pit which, after all, was Scotland's most modern and most expensive pit and which was planned


by private enterprise? Will the President of the Board of Trade drop his perfunctory and complacent attitude to something which has made aghast the whole of Scotland? Is he aware that we are very concerned about the position and that this just will not do—this reference to jobs in the pipeline?

Mr. Erroll: The references I make are real references and have great effect on policy. Therefore it is no use hon. Gentlemen just sneering at the figures I am giving. They are translated into facts in due course.

Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department has now spent in the Bishop Auckland constituency as a result of the passing of the Local Employment Act; and how many new jobs have been created thereby.

Mr. Erroll: I can give the information only for the Bishop Auckland development district, which goes rather wider than the constituency. The Board have offered assistance to the value of about £525,000 to provide about 900 jobs for the district.

Mr. Boyden: When the right hon. Gentleman answered Question No. 13 today he said that his aim was to bring work to the unemployed. Why does not he translate that principle into practice in West Durham? He told my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) that his constituents could find jobs in my constituency and on the same day in answer to a similar Question by myself the right hon. Gentleman said that my constituents could find jobs in Newton Aycliffe. Why does not he build advance factories at Crook, Willington and Bishop Auckland?

Mr. Erroll: I think it a very good thing that there should be a reasonable movement of labour between regions and districts, and this we take into account in formulating our development plans.

RADCLIFFE COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Mr. Marsh: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that disciplinary action has been taken

against the superiors of George Blake during his employment in Berlin.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister when he expects that the report of the Radcliffe Committee on Security will be published.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. Q3 together.
Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will be content to await a statement about the Radcliffe Report which I hope to make in the near future.

Mr. Marsh: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, when the Radcliffe Report is received by him, he intends to reveal the responsibility for this unfortunate state of affairs, or whether there will merely be a statement that many security factors are involved which cannot be revealed to the House?

The Prime Minister: I would rather not anticipate the statement. This is quite a complicated problem. In accordance with my undertaking, I have already been in touch with the Leader of the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends, and I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly.

DR. BANDA (UNITED KINGDOM VISIT)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite Dr. Kamuzu Banda to London for discussions on the situation in Nyasaland in relation to the Federation, in view of the Federal Government's renewed threat to use force to keep Nyasaland in the Federation and the danger that a federal general election will increase tension.

The Prime Minister: I understand that a visit by Dr. Banda to London has been in prospect for some time, although no date has been arranged yet. It will be useful to take an opportunity of discussion with him at a mutually convenient moment.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister had talks with Sir Roy Welensky, who represents less than 100,000 people in Rhodesia, and who has now


been repudiated in his electioneering by Sir Edgar Whitehead and a large section of the United Federal Party, would it not be most valuable to have really friendly discussions with Dr. Banda, who represents over 3 million people in Nyasaland, with a view to avoiding dangerous unrest in the Federation as it comes to its end?

The Prime Minister: That is why I said that the visit was in prospect—although no date has actually been arranged.

Mr. P. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is grave danger of too low a volume of investment being available for the Federation until after the Federal review? Therefore, is it not urgent and essential that the Federal review should be brought forward and conducted as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: That and other questions will be taken into consideration in dealing with this problem.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the event of the ties between Nyasaland and the Federation being broken the cost of supporting the economy of Nyasaland will not be thrown back upon the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to answer what is a purely hypothetical question at this stage.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister clarify his original answer a little? Does he mean that Her Majesty's Government propose shortly to invite Dr. Banda to come to this country, or has Dr. Banda himself suggested that he should come? If so, when is the visit likely to take place?

The Prime Minister: The visit is likely to take place by mutual agreement.

EIGHTEEN-POWER DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the recent statement of policy by the Soviet Government, whether he will consult President Kennedy with a view to making joint proposals at the Geneva Conference for the prevention of the further spreading

of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear countries, and for the banning of the use of nuclear weapons as part of a general disarmament treaty.

The Prime Minister: The proposals which President Kennedy, with the full support of the British Government, put to the United Nations in September, 1961, and which we hope will now be seriously discussed at the Eighteen-Power Disarmament Conference, contain a specific provision to prevent the emergence of any further independent nuclear Powers, and are generally designed to rule out the use of force on a national basis to settle international disputes. Under this plan all States would ultimately retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments and establishments required to maintain internal order. Consultation between our two Governments on these matters as well as on all other aspects of disarmament is continuous.

Mr. Henderson: Could not both these proposals be considered as constituting initial measures of disarmament to be put into effect without delay, as suggested by the Prime Minister in his 13th February letter to Mr. Khrushchev, conditional, of course, upon the subsequent achievement of the programme of general disarmament?

The Prime Minister: All this is just opening out. I do not think it would be helpful for me to add anything at this time.

Mr. H. Wilson: While none of us wish to do anything to make things more difficult in Geneva, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has studied the emphasis which some of us placed on the questions of a non-nuclear club and a nuclear-free zone in the recent debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman at any rate make plain that Her Majesty's Government will give full support to any measure designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries which are at present without nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the second part of the question is in what I said. The actual provision is:
that States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.


If the whole plan, of which this is part, came into effect that would be effective. With regard to the second part of the question, there are specific Questions to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal tomorrow which I should not wish to anticipate.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Soviet Government have published their answer—which obviously is of some propagandist value apart from other values—to the letter from the Secretary-General on this question? Will not the Prime Minister make his answer clear about the two resolutions on the Irish and Swedish initiative at United Nations?

The Prime Minister: This is coming up at the Conference itself, when we shall make our statement.

Mr. Warbey: The Prime Minister has said nothing effective about the Swedish resolution on the formation of a non-nuclear club passed by 58 votes to 10 in the General Assembly. In view of the fact that the Soviet Union has indicated its readiness to support this, if Britain, France and the United States will do the same, does not that give a possibility of making an enormous advance towards a state of affairs in which nuclear weapons would be confined to ourselves, to the United States and to the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: As I have already said, that is part of the United States proposal which we support. As the debate is just opening, it would be a mistake for me to try to deal with detailed points until the opening speeches have been made by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Rusk.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his attention has been drawn to the statement on nuclear weapons by the Bow Group of Conservatives and what is his opinion of them?

The Prime Minister: I always read all statements on these matters with interest, and I think it of great value for them to give these various points of view.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 19TH MARCH—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Vote on Account, 1962–63.

A debate will take place on the Economic Situation.

At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 16.

Second Reading of the Vehicles Excise Bill [Lords], and of the Telegraph Bill [Lords]. which are consolidation Measures.

TUESDAY, 20TH MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Report stage of the following Civil Supplementary Estimates:

Class VIII, Vote 3. Agricultural and Food Services.

Class VII, Vote 9. Stationery and Printing.

Class III, Vote 6. Carlisle State Management District.

Revenue Departments, Vote 2. Inland Revenue.

By Standing Order No. 16, the Questions on the Votes required before the end of the financial year are put at 9.30 p.m.

As opposed Private Business has been set down, the House will be asked to agree to the Supply Questions being put at seven o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, 21ST MARCH—Report and Third Reading of the Commonwealth Settlement Bill, and of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].

If there is time, Second Reading of the International Monetary Fund Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Anti-Dumping Order.

THURSDAY, 22ND MARCH—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill Second Reading, which it will be proposed should be


taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on the Aircraft Industry.

Committee and remaining stages of the Vehicles Excise Bill [Lords], and of the Telegraph Bill [Lords], which, as I have said, are consolidation Measures.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order.

FRIDAY, 23RD MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 26TH MARCH—It is hoped to be able to take the Second Reading of the West Indies Bill, and the Motion to approve the General Grant Increase Order.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House aware that while the debate on Monday will take place on the Committee stage of the Vote on Account, and that it will, therefore, be open to any hon. Member to raise anything in connection with that Vote on Account, it is our intention to concentrate especially on the failure of the Government's policy to expand exports?
Further, can he say when it is proposed to debate the Government's Motion on the setting up of a Joint Select Committee on House of Lords reform?
[That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament, or to vote at Parliamentary elections, or whether, and if so under what conditions, a Peer should be enabled to surrender a peerage permanently or for his lifetime or for any less period having regard to the effects and consequences thereof.]

Mr. Macleod: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says on Monday's business. The main speeches from this side of the Chamber will match that intention, and will be made by Treasury and Board of Trade Ministers.
Discussion of the Government Motion on House of Lords reform will be included in my business statement next week.

Mr. P. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend make any progress statement on

the discussions Chat have been taking place in relation to the Motion dealing with rights of minorities, and, if so, can he say whether that matter will be debated in due course?

[That this House takes note of the situation of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and other minorities in the House in relation to selection for service on Standing Committees; and expresses its disquiet at the present position.]

Mr. Macleod: I took up that matter at once with the authorities, and I have been considering various drafts. I would hope to be able to put proposals to the House in a few days' time.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the Leader of the House realise that there are some gaps in the business for next week? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister now has a new neighbour in Kent? If so, does he not think that that makes it all the more necessary to debate the Motion, standing in the right hon. Gentleman's own name, on House of Lords reform, in order to make it easier to retire the present Treasury Bench to the old folks' home up the road?

Mr. Macleod: It really is an appalling thought that we are to have more of those contributions.

Sir C. Osborne: The Leader of the Opposition has given notice that the Opposition will concentrate on exports during Monday's debate. As both sides agree that exports are the most vital of all our economic problems, cannot my right hon. Friend give extra time for that debate instead of closing it at 9.30 p.m., particularly as this week we have been sitting until midnight, discussing much less important matters?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, under one of our Standing Orders the Question has to be put from the Chair at 9.30.

Mr. Marsh: Is it possible to find time for a debate on the problems, resulting from Government policies, which face those buying, or desirous of buying, their own houses?

Mr. Macleod: I have not time immediately in mind for that debate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are


coming into the last days now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."]—of the time that is dominated by the necessities of the situation.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House observed the Motion standing in my name—which has now been supported by 200 hon. Members from both sides of the House—dealing with the pensions of ex-Service widows? Can he say whether the matter is being looked at sympathetically? If it is left open, could time be given to debate the desperate situation of these very deserving widows?
[That this House, recognising the hardship suffered by retired officers, pensioned other ranks and widows of the armed services, especially those who are old, whose retired pay and pensions cannot be debated under Pensions (Increase) Bills and bear no relation to current awards, urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to improve the pensions of widows bereaved before 4th November, 1958, and to examine the conditions peculiar to all armed service pensioners, and, as soon as economic circumstances permit, to introduce special provisions to improve their retired pay and pensions.]

Mr. Macleod: As I told my hon. Friend—I think, two weeks ago—I took up this matter at once with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other Ministers concerned, and action on it is, of course, for them.

Mrs. White: Is the Leader of the House aware that many thousands of young people who wish to go to universities, and many hundreds of university teachers, are finding that, like other workers by hand and brain, they are being pushed around by the Government, and will expect this House to give early consideration to the statement on universities made yesterday by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?

Mr. Macleod: I should have thought that that was certainly a subject that could be considered for a Supply day, or other suitable opportunity.

Mr. Hoy: In view of the worsening economic and employment situation in

Scotland, aggravated this week by the information of the closure of the Rothes Colliery, will the right hon. Gentleman find the time to discuss the Motion, signed by all those of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies, which refers to the closure of mines and railways in Scotland?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to appoint an independent committee to inquire into and report upon the social and economic consequences of the pit closures in Scotland proposed by the National Coal Board and the railway closures and curtailment of services in Scotland proposed by the British Transport Commission; and further calls upon Her Majesty's Government to direct that these closures and curtailment of services will not take effect until the report of the committee has been received and considered]

Mr. Macleod: I have, of course, studied that Motion very carefully, and we have, in one way and another, had some discussion of the matters raised in it, but at this time of year—not to slip into the phrase I used a moment or two ago—it is simply not possible to find Government time for it.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman not look at this question again? Is he aware that there is the deepest anger and frustration in Scotland at the failure of the Government and of private enterprise to provide the industry required to maintain full employment there; and that we are getting rather sick and tired of this continuous more-than-double the national average percentage of unemployment for the country? Will the Leader of the House take this matter seriously, and let us have a full day to debate it in the House? Many less urgent problems are discussed. Cannot the Government find time for this?

Mr. Macleod: This is a matter of great seriousness, but the first business I have announced for Monday, 19th March, is a general debate on the economic situation, and I should have thought that these matters would be in order then.

Mr. M. Foot: As, last night, a most important statement appears to have been made by a member of the Government on the future of the steel industry, including the future of Richard Thomas


and Baldwins, at a secret meeting of the Conservative Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not secret."] Well, partly secret; we want to discover whether what was said was accurate—does not the Leader of the House Chink that a matter of this importance should be the subject of a statement to the House, made by a Minister, which can be debated at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Macleod: If a statement on these matters is required, I shall, of course, consider it.

Mr. Foot: Why was it not made to the House in the first place?

Dame Irene Ward: If I may dare to ask a question about Scotland, may I ask about the closing of mines there, which must affect the livelihood of miners? Does my right hon. Friend intend to ask for the full facts to be supplied by the chairman of the National Coal Board about why so much money was invested in these mines if the Board did not see a future for them? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very disturbing to all pitmen, in both Scotland and in England? I should like to have a full statement from the chairman of the Board who, after all, is responsible.

Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell me what relevance this has to the business for next week?

Mr. Speaker: I was just about to say that I think, in order that we do not abuse our own time, it is important that questions on business should be confined to business. I hope that many hon. Members will notice that.

Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. Could you give me some guidance, Mr. Speaker? Has the Representation of the People Act been changed? Under what circumstances and under what Section of that Act were outside people permitted to be present at the count at a by-election last night? I understood that there were very special arrangements about the type and number of people who should be present at a count.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but, first, I do not know by what conceivable means this could be a point of order, and, secondly, if we were to discuss the matter, it could not be on the business for next week.

Mrs. Braddock: I was about to ask you, Sir, on a point of order, whether the Home Secretary would be prepared to make a statement next week on this very important matter. It concerns the people as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady wants to ask a question about that, she would have to address it properly to the Leader of the House. It is not for me.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the Leader of the House say when we are likely to have a debate on the White Paper on "A Hospital Plan for England and Wales", which was laid nearly two months ago and which has been already debated in another place?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot give a precise date, but I have said earlier that it would no doubt be the wish of the House to debate this matter. It might be appropriate to have conversations very soon to see Whether we could debate it just before or just after the Easter Recess.

Mr. Rankin: The Leader of the House said a few moments ago that the state of the Scottish economy could be dealt with in Monday's curtailed debate. Did he mean that a definite part of the time during Monday's debate would be set aside for Scottish speakers in the debate?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Why not?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member knows that that is a debate in which the Opposition will have the initiative so far as time is concerned. The conduct of the debate itself—which, no doubt, can range very wide but which may be concentrated by the main speakers on either side—is a question of the Chair.

Dr. King: A fortnight ago the Leader of the House told his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) that he was looking into the non-party Motion which calls attention to the position of ex-officers', widows' and other ranks' pensions, and also the non-party Motion in my name which calls attention to the hardships of public service pensioners.

[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and especially of older public service pensioners, whose pensions bear no relation


to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce, as soon as economic circumstances permit, a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to raise the incomes of such pensioners.]

Will the Leader of the House consider giving the House an opportunity of debating those two Motions, which draw attention to similar hardships suffered by groups of people?

Mr. Macleod: I believe there is a link and I said so a few weeks ago, but the answer I gave then to the hon. Member must still cover the point.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Leader of the House prepared to make a statement to the House next week, or will he ask the Home Secretary to do so, with reference to the method followed at a by-election count last night, the number of persons present, and under what circumstances they can be present?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will undertake to look carefully into the point raised by the hon. Lady, and, if he thinks it appropriate, he will bring it in the form of a statement before the House.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the fact that the Service Ministers have now discovered that there is a shortage of doctors, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the motion relating to the shortage of doctors?

[That this House, in view of the serious shortage of junior medical officers in the hospital service and the shortage of general practitioners in Northern industrial areas, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make available the finances and accommodation for a substantial increase in first-year medical students at universities in October, 1962, and to provide for several new university medical schools as urgent priority.]

The Minister of Health and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might then be better informed on the matter.

Mr. Macleod: I gave an answer earlier on the question of discussing the hospital building programme. Clearly, the question of staff for that programme

would be very suitably a matter for debate on that day.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), supported by most hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies who sit on this side of the House, drawing attention to the urgent need to have a fifth university in Scotland?

[That this House, noting with deep concern the increasing number of qualified applicants being refused entry to Scottish universities because of shortage of places at a time when the nation has an acute need for teachers and for trained university men and women for a wide variety of other vital posts, calls on Her Majesty's Government to embark on an adequate programme of university expansion in Scotland by establishing a fifth university and by granting forthwith full university status to the Royal College of Science and Technology of Glasgow.]

Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday's disastrous statement by the Treasury, announcing inadequate finance for the universities, will be a grave setback? Will he consider giving time for that announcement to be debated?

Mr. Macleod: I have, of course, studied the Motion in the names of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) about the effects of yesterday's announcement. In fact, I think that, on the whole, it will be well understood.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), showing the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness or inability to find adequate time to discuss the Scottish economic situation, will the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposes to do? The Scottish economic situation is very serious.

Mr. Macleod: I have examined that point already. It is a serious matter. Some aspects would be in order for discussion in Monday's debate and in other


debates other aspects could be discussed. I have never noticed that there were not opportunities to discuss Scottish affairs.

Mr. Manuel: Has the Leader of the House noticed the large number of Questions which have been asked during the past month about the decrease in the consumption of welfare foods, to the extent of about 75 per cent. compared with the old scheme for England, Wales and Scotland? Is he aware of the great concern which this is causing hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in the welfare services? Does he not think that in view of the steep decrease he should arrange for the House to consider the matter with a view to finding exactly what consequences will flow from this steep decrease in the consumption of these foods?

Mr. Macleod: I have read these exchanges. I think all my right hon. Friends dealt very adequately with the points which were put to them.

FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement on ministerial responsibility in respect of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and its constituent territories.
When the Federal Review Conference was adjourned in December, 1960, it was generally agreed that consideration of the future of the Federation should be deferred until further progress had been made with constitutional advance in the Rhodesias and Nysasaland. New Constitutions have now been established for the three territories and the time has come to take up again the problem of the future of the Federation and its relations with its constituent territories. The stage has thus been reached when our relations with the Federation and Southern Rhodesia and our responsibility for the two Northern Territories can appropriately be concentrated in the hands of a single Minister.
While responsibility was divided between my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, the two

Ministers were apt to be regarded in some quarters as identified with conflicting sectional interests in the Federation; and for this reason it would not be practicable to secure the desired unification of ministerial responsibility by transferring the functions of either to the other. Therefore, with the full agreement of the two Secretaries of State concerned, to whose skill and patience in dealing with the respective parts of this problem I would like to pay tribute, I have invited my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to undertake this responsibility. I am very grateful to him for agreeing to do so and for his readiness to add this task to the assistance he already gives me over a wide range of public duties.
Accordingly, from 19th March, all the existing responsibilities of the Commonwealth Secretary for the Federation and for Southern Rhodesia, and those of the Colonial Secretary for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, will be exercised by the Home Secretary. The staffs directly concerned with these matters in the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office will be brought together in a single unit which will be wholly responsible to the Home Secretary. As part of his general responsibilities, the Home Secretary will assume the ultimate responsibility at present exercised by the Colonial Secretary for members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service serving in the Protectorates. The undertakings given to these officers by Her Majesty's Government will continue unchanged.
I am confident that this adjustment of ministerial functions will improve our organisation for dealing with the problems confronting us now and in the period ahead, and will serve the best interests of all the inhabitants of the territories concerned.
In conclusion, I wish to emphasise that this new organisation does not imply any change in our policy towards the Federation or any of its constituent territories. In particular, it does not affect in any way the constitutional status of the Federal Government or of the Governments of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; nor does it affect in any way the Government's pledge to the peoples in the Northern Territories as set forth in the


Preamble to the Federal Constitution, which provided that
Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue, under the special protection of Her Majesty, to enjoy separate governments for so long as their respective peoples so desire".
This was, and remains, a pledge binding on the Government as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is one of the most extraordinary statements that has ever been made in my recollection by any Government? Can he think of any precedent in which, to use his own words, because two Ministers
were apt to be regarded in some quarters as identified with conflicting sectional interests
they are to have two very important sections of their Ministries removed from them and handed over to a third Minister? What are these quarters to which he refers, in which they are regarded
as identified with conflicting sectional interests "?
We all recognise that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) is the best Home Secretary we have, but is the Prime Minister convinced that he is also the best Colonial Secretary and the best Commonwealth Relations Secretary, as well as being the best Minister in charge of the Common Market? The House is entitled to rather fuller explanations of such an astonishing development. Is it not the case that instead of fiddling around with Ministerial responsibilities in this way, the real difficulty is the Government's failure to make up their mind about policy towards the Federation?
Over and above all this, do not the Government still stand by the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility? If they do, what is the purpose of this nonsensical gesture by the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman chooses to be rather facetious over a decision which I believe to be sound from an administrative point of view—a decision which will enormously simplify the work.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what precedent there is. What precedent is there for an area being at the same time a member of a Federation when one of its territories is the responsibility of the

Commonwealth Secretary and the other two are the responsibility of the Colonial Office? It adds enormously to the work if we have to have two offices and two Ministers to deal with different territories in the same Federation.
Following this decision there will be one Minister—the Home Secretary—and one Department. It is proposed to take the appropriate organisations out of the two present Departments and to make them into a single Department. I believe that it will be of enormous advantage to have this matter treated as a whole from the ordinary administrative and policy point of view.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister at least attempt to answer some of my questions? Are we to understand that the two Ministers simply cannot agree with each other and that the Cabinet cannot impose its decision upon them? If the Cabinet can impose a decision, what is the ground for this extraordinary step of taking away Ministerial responsibilities in this fashion? Will he answer my question as to which quarters there are which regard these two right hon. Gentlemen as so
identified with conflicting sectional interests"?

The Prime Minister: What I had in mind was that it is a great advantage to have a whole territory, whether it happens to be Colonies or part of a Federation, under a single Department as well as under a single Minister. When we settle the constitutional advance for the three territories of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, that is the moment to bring the whole matter into a single control and single administration.
Had the territory been handed over to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, there might have been a feeling in some of the African Colonies, where Africans predominate, that they would be too much subordinated to the Commonwealth point of view. Alternatively, had it been handed over to the Colonial Secretary, such countries as the Federation itself and Southern Rhodesia, which have long been independent, would have resented being handed back into a colonial status. By far the best way, therefore, if we are to take this single step, which I think is right, is to have a separate Minister.
I frankly admit that the Colonial Territories, the Africans, up to now have regarded the Colonial Office as their protector—which is an interesting comment on those who talk so much about colonialism. But all the pledges remain, and all the duties will remain; all the duties of the Colonial Office in those territories will be part of the new Department under the Home Secretary. I am quite certain that if we are to try to resolve these very difficult problems which lie before us it is far better for the method of administration to be handled in this way. It is no reflection on the Ministers concerned, who have other very heavy duties to perform. It will be a better administration which will lead to better results.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Estimates Committee, in a previous Session, recommended the merging of these two offices under a single Minister? Will he regard this announcement as possibly the first stage towards the implementation of that recommendation? Secondly, will the Prime Minister tell us what will happen to the staff of the two Ministries concerned? Will they be housed in the Home Office, or will there be built up a separate Department to deal with these territories.

The Prime Minister: I am glad that my right hon. Friend asked that question. The amalgamation to which he referred in the first part of his question is a process which must inevitably come in the end. People have often talked of amalgamating the whole Colonial Office with the whole Commonwealth Relations Office. There are difficulties about that, as the House knows. As long as there are dependent territories there is always the danger that it might not be acceptable to some members of the Commonwealth. We have to bear that in mind.
We have made one similar organisation on this basis in setting up the Department of Technical Aid, where we took the appropriate parts of the Commonwealth Relations Office and of the Colonial Office and other Departments to perform a functional task. This is on the way to what ultimately will come—a single Department—as the dependent territories become very small and almost of minor importance.
Turning to the second part of the question, the staff of the Central African Office, as it will be called, will be composed of the administrative divisions now dealing with these subjects in the two Departments. It will be responsible to the Secretary of State. It will have a Deputy Secretary. The Home Secretary, with my approval, has appointed to this Office Mr. M. D. Tennant, Secretary-General to the Monckton Commission and now an Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Labour. There will be a separate Vote. But, of course, it will not be necessary to build up a whole organisation afresh, because they will draw on the existing Departments for legal, financial, economic and communications questions and other matters; for these they can draw on the services of the existing Departments.

Mr. Grimond: Why does the Prime Minister consider that the creation of a third Department will make it easier to merge the existing two? Why was the Home Secretary chosen for this job? If there were confusion before in Africa between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office, will this confusion in African minds be cleared up by the knowledge that they are now to be under the Home Department?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are two reasons. First, the Home Secretary is, I believe, extremely able to perform this task, and he is willing to undertake it. As he has given up the Leadership of the House and other functions, I believe that he can carry it within his stride. [Laughter.] The second reason is more technical. All Secretaries of State, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows, can carry out the functions of any. Consequently, this step does not require legislation—not even an Order in Council.

Sir R. Robinson: While welcoming the Prime Minister's statement—[Laughter.]—as an indication of unity and of purpose in this important field, may I ask him to deal with two points for clarification? First, what is the position of the Protectorates? Do they still look to the Colonial Office for their protection? Secondly, will the Government—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that these expressions of joy can be


wholly unconfined, because we have so much to do.

Sir R. Robinson: Secondly, will the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have direct access to Her Majesty through the Home Secretary?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks, first, about the protective powers. Those functions which at present are exercised by the Colonial Office will be exercised by the senior Secretary of State, the Home Secretary, who has this new Department. It is a fine thing that there is such confidence among Africans in the Colonial Office. Many people outside this country who do not always recognise it might recognise that fact. All the pledges and all the duties towards the Africans and the protective power will be carried on through the new Department.
In answer to the second question, the system will be as now: the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be directly responsible to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dugdale: While I realise that the Prime Minister did not consult but merely ordered the acquiescence of his two reluctant colleagues on each side of him, may we be told whether he consulted the Prime Ministers of the countries concerned, and, if he did, what exactly was their reaction in each case?

The Prime Minister: This is an administrative change within our own structure. All the Government's obligations, of course, are collective, and this, therefore, makes no difference. It is a matter of organisation. I believe—and anybody who has been studying this matter will believe—that since we have reached the stage which we contemplated after the last Federal review, of having three Constitutions settled, this is the right step. Whatever may be the final answer to how these territories are to live, either separately or together, and how the Federation is to function, what are to be its duties and what it is to do, it is far better that the question should be handled by a single Minister responsible to the collective Cabinet as a whole.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by this gradual hiving

off of bits of the Colonial Office much knowledge and expertise will be lost? Is it not much wiser not to take so many bites at the cherry, but to amalgamate the two Departments as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the expertise will be lost because the Assistant Secretaries, the two principals, the people now dealing with the two territories in the Colonial Office, will be in part of the new Department. Similarly, from the Commonwealth Office those who have dealt with the Federation will be in the new Department. They will have the technical financial, legal and social services available in the respective Departments.
I repeat that I think the day will come when these two Departments will be amalgamated, but I must be frank and say—and I believe that it will be accepted by the House as a whole—that at the present state of development of the Commonwealth that would be misunderstood. It might well be resented by some of the countries which have just become independent if they felt that they were being dealt with by a Department operating the direct rule of dependent territories.

Mr. Strachey: As part of the duties of the Home Secretary will be under the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, when it becomes law, to restrict the immigration of British citizens into this country, does the right hon. Gentleman think it a good arrangement that the protection of these citizens should be transferred to this particular Minister?

The Prime Minister: As regards the principle, I am quite sure that its operation will be with the complete fairness one would expect from my right hon. Friend. As regards the practical importance, I would have thought that migration from these territories would be almost negligible.

Mr. Russell: May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether this arrangement requires legislation, and, secondly, what arrangement he intends to make for Questions to be answered in the House by his right hon. Friend, bearing in mind that he is already asked a number of Questions as Home Secretary?

The Prime Minister: This does not require legislation, or an Order in


Council, because, as I have said, under our historic traditions the functions of any Secretary of State can be carried out by any other. Therefore, the arrangement is purely administrative and does not need formal legislation or Order.
The Home Secretary will himself answer Questions directed to these territories, and in his absence the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will answer for him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—at any rate, for the time being, but I do not think that this is likely.
The fixing of an appropriate day might, perhaps, be taken up through the usual channels. I understand that discussions are already taking place about some alteration of Question days.

Mr. Healey: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that nothing he has said this afternoon about the time having to come to review the Federal Constitution derogates or replaces the undertaking given the other day by the Colonial Secretary that there will be no negotiations about the future relationship of Northern Rhodesia to the Federation until elections have been held in Northern Rhodesia and there is a more representative Government there?

The Prime Minister: These statements which are on the record will, of course, remain. This administrative change is for the sole purpose, first, of easing the very heavy burdens which lie on the two Secretaries of State—and they are very great—and, secondly, of making what I believe to be—and I say this with absolute sincerity—a better arrangement from the administrative point of view. It will allow a single mind to be concentrated on the problems of the territories without regard to whether they happen to be nominal Colonies or part of the Federation as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the totally unsatisfactory answers given by the Prime Minister and the fact that the House clearly wishes to probe this matter further, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to find an early date for debating this important change?

The Prime Minister: If that is put through the usual channels, no doubt time can be found for debate.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL REVIEW)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to report the results of the Annual Agricultural Review.
I am glad to say that the figures show a continuing and substantial rise in the industry's net income. The forecast of actual net income for the year ending 31st May, 1962, is £431½ million compared with the revised estimate for 1960–61 of £389½ million. when adjusted for normal weather, the forecast net income for 1961–62 is £413½ million compared with £387 million for last year and £361 million for 1959–60. The forecast for net output for 1961–62 is also higher than before.
The cost of agricultural support has also risen substantially. The estimate for 1962–63, put in before this Review, is £339 million.
I come now to the individual commodities. A feature of last year's weak market for beef was the number of lower quality animals in the market. Consequently, while we are not changing the guaranteed price, we are making the following alterations in the guarantee arrangements. We are raising the general standard at which cattle are accepted for the guarantee and reducing the maximum weights on which the guarantee is paid. We are also introducing a new standard for lighter, young beasts of good conformation. In order to strengthen the pull of the market we are also widening the stabilising limits which apply to the guaranteed price.
The output of mutton and lamb in 1961–62 is expected to be about 10 per cent. above the record figure of 1960–61. There has been a significant increase in the breeding flock and the prospect is of continuing low market prices and a heavy subsidy. We are, therefore, reducing the guaranteed price by 1d. per lb. and here again we are reducing the maximum weights on which guarantee is paid and widening the stabilising limits. There will be no change in the guaranteed price for wool.
For pigs we have the flexible guarantee arrangement which we introduced last year to promote a steadier rate of production. Under this arrangement, the guaranteed price came down by 6d. per score in February, and if the forecast number of pigs reaches 11 million there will be a further automatic reduction. The basic guaranteed price will be left unchanged.
Egg production in the coming year is expected to be significantly higher than the present record level, which satisfies virtually the whole of the demand for shell eggs in this country. There is a real danger that production will exceed demand, and we are reducing the guaranteed price by l½d. per dozen.
The guaranteed price for milk was increased last year by 0·8d. per gallon in the expectation that the industry would devise a payments system which would bring home to the individual producer the fact that output beyond a certain level fetches only the manufacturing price, which is unremunerative, and reduces the pool price. The industry has not as yet found an answer to the problem, and in view of this and the continuing increase in production there has been no option but to reduce the guaranteed price. The reduction will be 0·4d. per gallon, and the effect of this, together with the continuing increase in output, will mean a reduction of about 1d. per gallon in the pool price which the farmer receives.
The method of fixing retail milk prices is not, of course, an Annual Review matter. But before I leave the subject of milk I would mention that we are arranging for the retail price of liquid milk to cover in future the full cost of the guarantee. In recent years the general milk subsidy falling on the Exchequer has averaged £8 to £9 million a year. Taking one year with another, there should be no cost to the Exchequer in future. The retail price of milk will need to be increased from 8d. to 8½d. a pint for some six or seven months of the year; about half of this increase is attributable to the decision which I have just announced and the rest is due to other factors such as the rise in distributive costs resulting from the wages award of some while ago.
The general prospects for cereals, potatoes and sugar beet do not call for any changes in the guaranteed prices for these products.
As regards production grants, we are extending the upper limit of the Small Farmer Scheme from 450 to 500 standard man-days in order to give special help and encouragement to those small farmers who, because of their rather higher level of cropping and stocking, are at present outside the scope of the Scheme.
We shall be introducing lower rates of subsidy for fertilisers, which will reduce the subsidy bill by an estimated £2½ million.
Finally, I come to the need for improved marketing. We welcome the increasing emphasis which the industry is placing on marketing and are anxious to help in this regard. We have worked out with the Unions a scheme of grants to encourage marketing research and development, and the Government will make available up to £1½ million over three years to this end.
The total value of the guarantees for the year 1961–62 was £1,351½ million. After taking increased costs of £19½ million into consideration, the maximum reduction of this figure within the Agriculture Act, 1957, is about £14 million. The effect of this Review is to reduce the value of the guarantees by just under £11 million.
Full details of the Review will be found in a White Paper which is available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Peart: I hope that we can have an assurance that, if there is a conflict with the Treasury, the Home Office will not take over from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Minister has told us that the value of the guarantees will be reduced by about £11 million, and he gave details. How much will the reduction of 1d. per lb. in the guaranteed price for sheep produce? If the forecast number of pigs reaches 11 million, the guaranteed price will be reduced. If this happens, how much will be cut? How much of the £11 million will be accounted for by the reduction of l½d. per dozen in the guaranteed price of eggs? There is to be a reduction in the guaranteed price


of milk of 0·4d. per gallon. Is this to be passed on to the consumer? How much will the consumer pay over the next three or four months?
On general matters, is this an agreed Review? Do the unions welcome the Review? How far have the negotiations with the Common Market countries affected the Review negotiations? Whatever our attitude to the Common Market may be, can the Minister say that the Review offers a challenge to the industry, particularly a challenge to the farmer to increase his efficiency? Can he say how this Review, from the point of view of policy, will affect the farmer in that way?
I welcome the proposals for improved marketing. Will they have an effect? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who said recently that the Government must have an import policy in view of the effect of imports on our price structure? Do the Government intend to announce a new arrangement about imports? This is a key question.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman asked me, first, what the effect of the Review will be on the price of different commodities. The 1d. per lb. off the guaranteed price for sheep will amount to about £2 million. The reduction in the guaranteed price of milk will amount to about £3½ million. The reduction in the guaranteed price of eggs will amount to about £5 million.
The hon. Gentleman asked what effect the reduction in the guaranteed price of milk would have on the consumer. This year the price of milk has been 8d. per pint throughout the year. During the coming year it will be 8d. for some months and 8½d. for some months—in other words, there will be an increase of ½d. during roughly six months of the year.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the unions agree with the Review. The answer is that I regret that they do not, though the basic figures on which the Review was decided have, as is customary, been agreed with the unions.
The hon. Gentleman then asked me whether I think that agriculture in general will benefit from the decisions within the Review. I think that it will.

I remind the House that there will be an increase in the number of small farmers who will come within the Small Farmer Scheme. Linked with that, some of the £1½ million which the Government are to make available for marketing research and development will be able to be spent so that small farmers can get together more in co-operatives.
If a number of small farmers get together they will be able to reap more of the advantages enjoyed by the large farmer, because they will then be larger sellers of a more standard product. I believe that this will be of the greatest benefit to a large number of small farmers throughout the country.
The fact that we are negotiating with the European Economic Community has had no bearing on the result of the Review. The hon. Gentleman spoke about imports. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we shall continue with our system of farm support and with our trading arrangements, as they have been operated this year, until the outcome of the negotiations with the Common Market is known.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Could my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about market research? Whereas, in general, the Review seems fair, we would like further information on this point.

Mr. Soames: As I was saying in answer to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), the scheme has been agreed with the unions. There are a number of things on which this money will be able to be spent. These grants vary from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. according to the scheme. An executive committee will be set up by the unions and it will sieve the applications from the industry. No grant will be paid until it is approved by my Department, and I hope that a considerable feature of it will be that to which I referred a moment ago; the setting up of a larger number of co-operatives of small farmers.

Mr. Morris: On the question of milk, does the Minister remember that last year he said that we must try to break this vicious circle and make a solid effort to work out a scheme? How long will the Minister go on presiding over the continuing declining profitability of the milk industry and the rising prices to the consumers? The unions and the Milk


Marketing Board run circles around him in this respect. Why are the Government frightened to work out a scheme for the general benefit of all producers and consumers?

Mr. Soames: We believe, and we have always stated, that it is the job of the industry to decide whether it wishes to continue as at present—with the price of milk declining owing to the increased production above the standard quantity—or whether it wishes to go forward with a two-tier price system. I hope, as was said by the leaders of the unions when the annoucement was made during the course of last year, that further consideration will be given to this very important matter to the industry.

Mr. P. Browne: The increase in the man-days and the extra money available for co-operation between small farmers will be welcome, but does my right hon. Friend not think that this increased help for the small farmer has been vitiated by the fact that he has made cuts in exactly the products on which the small farmer depends for his livelihood? This has happened too often over the past few years.

Mr. Soames: There was no alternative, the circumstances of production being what they are, but to impose the cuts in the prices of milk and eggs. There was simply no alternative but so to do. I am hopeful that the extension of the Small Farmer Scheme to the extra number of farmers will mitigate the effect of this to some extent.

Mr. Thorpe: If the purpose of the 1957 Act was to produce food at reasonable prices to the consumer, and a proper income for the farmer, has is not so far resulted in high prices to the consumer and agricultural incomes lagging well behind the rest of the community?
If I may refer to the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), is the Minister aware that the milk cheque is absolutely vital—

Mr. Morris: Absolutely vital.

Mr. Thorpe: —to the small farmer and that this cut will have a very serious effect indeed?
Concerning fertilisers, on which he is making a £2½ million cut. can he explain why, in May, 1960. the President of the Board of Trade persuaded Belgian and West German exporters to raise the prices of these exports to this country by £2 10s. a ton? Only last week a £3 a ton anti-dumping duty was put on exports from East Germany because I.C.I. said that that commodity was being dumped in this country. Meanwhile, I.C.I. is selling this product at the dumped price to Ireland. Why are the Government in collusion with I.C.I. like this and exploiting the farmer? Why not limit the tariffs on fertilisers so that the farmers are able to buy them as cheaply as possible?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was aware that these policies were resulting in expensive food and a poor income for agriculture. In fact, compared with other countries of the Western world, food in this country is exceptionally good value.
The income of the agricultural industry, in relation to the income of the rest of the economy, bears comparison with any developed country in the world.

Mr. Morris: Complete rubbish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The business in this House is impossible if hon. Members assume to themselves the right to shout a running commentary. It makes it hard for the hon. Member who is speaking to be heard. Sir Anthony Hurd.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. The Minister, very courteously, was about to answer the last part of my question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If that was so it was because of the noise that I did not appreciate that fact. That shows how important it is that hon. Members should not make so many noises.

Mr. Soames: I was about to say that, on the question of fertilisers, the imposition of anti-dumping duties under the Anti-Dumping Act is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade. But this applies to all industries in this country, the fertiliser as well as the agricultural industry and other manufacturing industries.

Sir A. Hurd: My right hon. Friend mentioned that the net farming income was up, I think he said, by £42 million over the last year. Is he aware that this seems contrary to the experience of the general body of farmers? Can he say where all this extra money has been made? He mentioned the extension of the Small Farmer Scheme. Is he satisfied that this scheme is doing a good job? How much more money is he proposing to put in and how many people will benefit from this extra money?

Mr. Soames: I could not break down the net income of the agricultural industry as a whole into commodities, or groups of farms, but my hon. Friend knows that this is a figure which was agreed with the unions after discussions on the figures.
I believe that the Small Farmer Scheme has been a successful one hitherto. Its object is to bring more in, and the increase from 450 to 500 standard man-days will bring 13,000 more farmers into the Scheme. We have put in £2½ million for it in this year's Estimates. It will probably take about £10 million over the four years period.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Can the Minister say what is the toal amount of subsidy and grant payable to Scottish farmers? Year after year we have the Minister of Agriculture making a statement without there being any attempt on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer for Scotland. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect of the increase in the retail price of milk will have on people with small fixed incomes? He should know that this will cause very great hardship to these people and to old-age pensioners.

Mr. Soames: We do not break down this figure for any part of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, or England—as to how much subsidy payment will go to any particular part for any commodity. It is not a question of Scotland or England, for the same applies to both. It is a national sum which is taken for agriculture as a whole.

Mr. Hamilton: It is a separate Estimate.

Mr. Soames: That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman asked exactly how

much had been paid out. This will depend on market prices and the levels in the different countries and I cannot, therefore, give the figure.
The price of milk will be another ½d. for about three or four months of this year and the remaining three months or so will be for the increased distributive costs, as I said, largely owing to the wage increase which took place in the distributive trades last year. The extent to which this will affect the cost-of-living index I cannot say, but it will not affect the price paid for welfare milk by the people who use it.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that his announcement will do nothing to adjust the imbalance which now exists between the subsidy given to the grain grower, which is far in excess, in proportion to what he produces, to the subsidy which goes to the livestock farmer? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the reduction in the guarantee for sheep will strike at that sector of the industry which finds profit most hard to make, namely, the upland farmers, and that it will have a particular effect upon the Scottish upland farmer, because sheep play a much greater part in the agricultural economy of Scotland than in the case of England and Wales?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will remember that in last year's Review we took a considerable cut off barley of, I think, 1s. 2d. We believe that we have the relationship between the different grain crops about right.
I would point out that there has been an increase in production of lambs this year of no less than 10 per cent., and that already the census figures show an even higher ewe flock than we had last year.
Concerning the proportion of subsidy, my hon. Friend will appreciate that while the market price over the past year has been about 2s. per lb., 1s. 3d. extra per lb. has been paid out in subsidy on lamb.

Mr. Hilton: While welcoming the decision to encourage more small farmers to participate in the Small Farmer Scheme, may I ask whether the decision to reduce subsidies, especially on fertilisers and eggs, will not punish


the small farmer in particular? Is it not ridiculous to try to encourage more small farmers to participate in the scheme and then to punish them in this way?

Mr. Soames: I really cannot differentiate in price and have different prices for different sizes of farms.

Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news that the net income of the industry is up by £42 million is good news, although, no doubt, many farmers will be unable to understand it? Is he aware that in many respects it is the matters which are not contained in his statement which are important? Is he aware that the decision not to reduce the price of beef after the unfortunate experiences of last year is very welcome indeed and will result in the farming community taking a good deal of confidence from the Minister? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the farming community will be glad that the 1957 Act has been honoured and that the Minister has fought so hard with the Treasury to keep farming in a prosperous condition?

Mr. Darling: Would the Minister agree that we cannot get a proper picture of the full effect of these changes in guarantees, and so on, unless he puts into the Price Review the effect that they will have on the retail price index and the cost of living index? We might then be able to see more clearly what the general effect would be.
I should like to ask a question on the Minister's reference to the grants which he is giving for marketing research. Will he say that he now accepts the view, which has frequently been expressed from this side of the House, that deficiency payment schemes cannot be run satisfactorily in an unorganised market and that co-operative marketing developments are now necessary? Somebody has to prepare these schemes, however. Is it the function of the research organisation, which, apparently, is to be set up, to prepare marketing schemes, not only for small farmers, but to cover a wide range of products that are now subject to free market conditions?

Mr. Soames: The retail price index is affected not by the level of subsidies paid

out in agriculture, but by the level of market prices in the shops. These we cannot judge. I cannot gauge ahead what will be the movement of food prices over the coming year. It would be rash to try to do so.
What I have said about market research and development is in no way confined solely to small farmers. I know that the hon. Member and many of his hon. Friends have frequently drawn attention to the need for improved marketing methods, and so have we on this side. The Government have been constantly telling the industry that increased effort should go into the marketing side as opposed to the production side of the industry and that more and more accent should be placed upon marketing. The schemes will by no means be limited to small farmers specifically, but will cover a very wide field.

Mr. Kimball: Can my right hon. Friend say what will be the maximum weight on which the top grade payment will now be made for beef? Is he aware that he will at least get some credit for not having chopped and changed around his policy because of the little local difficulties that arose with beef last summer?

Mr. Ross: Little difficulties?

Mr. Soames: That is an interesting attitude towards the difficulty. In the coming year, the maximum weight on which the subsidy will be paid, is being reduced from 15 cwt. to 14 cwt.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am in the general difficulty of bringing these matters to an end.

Mr. Peart: I only wish to ask a question of the Leader of the House, Sir. In view of the fact that we have not had an agreed settlement concerning the Price Review, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we will be given time for a debate on the Review and its implications?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I cannot give a date. Without commitment, however, we will be ready to discuss the matter.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Leader of the House aware that this matter affects Scotland, too—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed it does. Separate Estimates are presented—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker rose—

Mr. Hoy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I put this point to you? The Estimates as presented to the House are Estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and separate Estimates are presented for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, We have not pressed the matter today, but may we have an assurance that if a debate takes place the Secretary of State for Scotland will participate in it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not addressing me on a point of order. I mean no disrespect to him, and certainly no disrespect to Scotland or Scottish agriculture, but the whole of this proceeding is utterly irregular and out of order.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Norman Alexander Miscampbell, esquire, for Blackpool, North.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1962–63, AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1962–63; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1962–63; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; AIR ESTIMATES, 1962–63, AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £133,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: This is an extraordinary Estimate. We are here dealing with an Estimate of £133 million plus £7 million which has already been appropriated, and of this, as I calculate it, £100 million is for pay and the rest is made up of allowances and contributions. We have been told already that there will be a Supplementary Estimate It is really extraordinary that, before we have even considered this Estimate in respect of pay, we are told that there wall be a Supplementary Estimate for a further £14 million.
The announcement by the Minister of Defence that only half the pay increases will come into effect this year is scandalous. The pay represented by these Estimates is based upon increases which the Grigg Committee intended should come into force before 1st April, 1960. It was the recommendation of the Grigg Committee that the first review should be carried out in time for any change to come into force before 1st April, 1960, the operative and important words being that it should come into force before that date. The Secretary


of State, in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), said that the Government agreed that Service pay should be looked at regularly and at intervals of not more than two years, and this, he said, is what the Government had done.
As I understand it, the Grigg Committee reported that, first, there should be a review and, second, there should be a review every two years, the first review coming into effect before 1st April, 1960. This is of fundamental importance for the pay of the Services. The Secretary of State and the Minister of Defence should not only look into the question of soldiers' pay but they should do something about it. They can look into soldiers' pay until Doomsday but that will be no good for the soldier at the receiving end. I regard it as a scandal that our soldiers should be treated in this way, according to the intentions of the Government as stated by the Minister of Defence. One of the scandals of military history occurred when contractors supplied stores to the Army which were nothing more than rubbish. The way that the soldiers are being robbed now will rank similarly as one of the scandals of military history. It is nothing more than a solicited gift, a compulsory gift, to the Government. I regard it as twentieth-century poor man's ship money.
The present pay of the Forces is already two years behind pay in industry generally. Of necessity, because of its structure, the biennial review leads to a two-year time-lag. A wait of two years is inherent in Government policy, but now, as a result of their failure to carry out the recommendation of the Grigg Committee, there will be a further delay in addition to the two years' lag. Service pay will be three years behindhand now.
When we were discussing the Army Estimates the other day, I put a question to the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that he will answer it today. He did not give me an answer then, perhaps because of shortage of time. The Minister of Defence has said that it is his belief that soldiers should not wish to be excepted from what other wage earners have to accept in the way of delay in implementation of pay increases. What inquiries

have been made by the Secretary of State to ascertain whether soldiers are satisfied with their pay according to the present Estimates and whether they are willing not to have their full entitlement this year of 9½ per cent. for other ranks and 5 per cent. for officers? The Minister of Defence cannot say that he believes that soldiers would not wish to be excepted unless there is evidence for his belief. If no inquiries have been made by the Secretary of State, we should be told. The Government should come clean and say what the view of soldiers is on this point. If inquiries have been made, we should be told the extent and result of them.
When I was first given the task of assisting my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton in our consideration of the Army Estimates, one of the first things I did was to read in detail the reports of previous debates on the Army Estimates. I found that on 10th March, 1960, the previous Under-Secretary said:
I can say that there is no intention on the part of this Government, who have given £5 million by way of pay increases, to welsh on the Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 753.]
Does the present Under-Secretary of State agree with that, or is it now the wish of the Government to welsh on the Army in the matter of pay? Those words of March, 1960, sound very mocking and hollow in the light of the statement made by the Minister of Defence. The Daily Mirror said that Forces pay was to go up next month, but the Government have broken their promise to keep it in line with civvy street earnings and have defaulted on their pay pledge to the men and women in the Forces.
It is no argument to say that men and women in the Forces are being treated like other people in the public service. Men and women in the Army—I have in mind particularly those who joined since the publication of the Grigg Report—were given a specific promise. The Government are unilaterally breaking their contract. These men have signed on the dotted line to serve for a fixed number of years, and they cannot unilaterally break their contracts. If they did, they would be treated as deserters or as people absent without leave. They cannot do it. Yet the Government have


had the face to break unilaterally their promise to the Forces.
The men in the Forces have no union, never mind what the Minister of Defence says about being their trade union leader. The right hon. Gentleman's words sound very hollow now. Men in the Forces have no arbitration boards or industrial tribunals. They have to rely upon the Government's promise of a square deal, and that promise of a square deal has been flagrantly broken.

Mr. Clive Bossom: I have a suggestion to put to the Committee which, if implemented, would, I believe, bring in several hundred recruits of the calibre the Army needs today without costing very much extra money. Recruiting is doing well, but now we must move into top gear. Because we are coming into the post-war birth-rate bulge, the number of young people leaving school during the next few years will mean that we shall have more young men available than ever before.
I am convinced that we are losing young men who are "mustard keen" at school, or just about school leaving age, who want to join the Army, but they cannot join until they are 17½, except in excellent regiments like the Junior Leader Regiments, and the Army loses them forever. I suggest that with the cooperation of the Ministry of Education and local authorities, a type of Army class in secondary technical schools should be created. Later, perhaps, we could follow this up by having a similar class in secondary modern and grammar schools. We want to induce young men to sign on at some time after they reach 16 years of age, giving them a retaining fee or bounty which, if they break their contracts, they would have to pay back. They would then go in as civilians to a special Army course. The subjects in the school curriculum could include mathematics, wireless, electronics, engineering, M.T. and science.
By this method, the Army will not lose keen young men, and, after one and a half years of further schooling, it will gain the very much needed future tradesmen and junior N.C.O.s.
In the beginning, such a scheme could work only in the highly developed and large industrial towns and cities, but the recruiting figures in the Midlands prove

that young men want to join and that they are in fact joining in fairly large numbers. I am convinced that we can get still more recruits by this method. A bounty also might encourage parents to allow their sons to stay on instead of leaving school, and to earn their living.
Today, 80 per cent. of recruits are under 20 years of age. We must therefore concentrate on these young men before they settle down in other occupations. At 15 to 16 they are attracted by the Army. They want travel, adventure and sport. The Army can give them these things. Large overseas airborne exercises such as those that we had last year appeal to them. If a young man has to wait eighteen months, he is frustrated by hanging around; he gets a job, settles down and begins to earn good wages and is treated as a responsible person. He makes friends, especially girl friends, who play a very large part in his life and are inclined to persuade him to stay in civvy street.
I am well aware of the outstandingly successful work done by the Junior Leader Regiments and the apprentice training schools, but as I see it they are producing the long-term man—the potential warrant officer and the senior N.C.O. for the future, who, we hope, will sign on for twenty-two years. I am concerned with the product of the "G.C.E. stream" who is the future corporal, lance-corporal or trained technician. He may remain in the Army for only six or nine years, but I am sure that nowadays it is quality and not quantity which is needed. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the possibility of an Army class in our secondary technical schools.
My other suggestion, which would cost hardly anything in extra pay for the men, is this. Could not the Army have one more look at allowing young men to join their depôts at 16½ years of age? I do not suggest that they should join their regiments until they are 17½ or go abroad until they are 18¼. I realise, of course, that a young man of 16½ years requires very special supervision, but now that conscription is gradually coming to an end surely some of the highly-trained officers and N.C.O. instructors who will be available for other duties could be posted to look after these special intakes at depôts.
Instead of giving the recruit a ten-week training course—this, in my opinion, is far too short if we are to have a highly-trained professional soldier—I suggest that he should have six to nine months' training before joining his unit. In the past, the argument has always been that a young man under 17½ years cannot compete with the rough and tumble of barrack room life. However, times and conditions have changed greatly—at least, since I joined the Buffs in 1937. I believe that we are out of date and not completely in touch with present-day conditions. Young men of 16½ years are much more mature today than many of us think. I also think that the point about the rough and tumble of barrack room life has been eliminated.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will consider allowing the cream of youth to go into the Army at 16½ years. I assure him that by preventing them from doing so they are going sour through waiting.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I cannot help feeling that the attack of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on the Government for, as he alleged, not keeping their pledge to the Army concerning pay is very damaging to this country's interests. I reject the allegation that the Government have not kept their pledge. A 5½ per cent. rise with the promise of a further rise in future is exactly in accordance with the Government's pledge.
The hon. Member for Aberavon said that he found a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Army. This is contrary to the advice that I have received from friends and serving soldiers and officers in Her Majesty's Forces to whom I have spoken. I do not believe that people join the Army for the sake of pay. That is a wrong premise from which to start an argument, which is what the hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the Grigg Report, which laid very great stress on the importance of pay?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, I do not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me time to develop my argument.

I said that I did not think that the Government had broken their pledge. A 5½ per cent. rise now with another rise in the future honours the Government's pledge, particularly since people in the country generally are getting only 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The one thing which I thought was beyond dispute and which was common ground among everybody was that the Government have not honoured their pledge. There may have been reasons for dishonouring the pledge, but that it has been dishonoured I should have thought was common ground among everybody.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It may be common ground between the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends but it is not common ground between him and me.
It is vital that we should continue to recruit and should, if possible, attain our target of 165,000 men, rising to 180,000 if possible, as soon as we can.

Mr. George Wigg: Mr. George Wigg (Dudley) rose—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is so expert in these matters, can wait a moment.
What is said by the Opposition Front Bench, by the unofficial Opposition and by the rest of them is doing the one thing which will retard recruitment. That is why I said that it is contrary to our interests as a country.
I now turn to a point which arises under Subhead E, Vote 1, on page 3 of the Supplementary Estimate dealing with the pay and marriage allowance of the Gurkha Brigade. I am glad to note that these have risen by a quite considerable sum. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tell me whether the members of the Brigade are getting the same rates of pay regardless of where they may be serving, or do the rates of pay differ between troops serving in the United Kingdom and those serving in Hong Kong and Malaya? Are there any Queen's Commissioned Gurkha officers? If so, are they receiving the same rates of pay as British officers?
I notice that a very small sum is allowed for payment to those with language qualifications. When I was serving, the pay to anyone with a language


qualification was very small compared with the toil and trouble and the considerable amount of expertise necessary to qualify a person for that pay. I should have thought that today it was vital that as many officers and other ranks as well should be able to speak foreign languages, particularly Russian, French and German, as fluently as possible. The rate of pay to those with language qualifications should be raised considerably. I suspect that it has not been raised at all, or, if it has, that it has been raised only marginally.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will pay particular attention to the points I made about the Gurkhas. I am particularly anxious that the number of these very fine fighting men in our Forces and with whom I held a Regular commission years ago should be increased and that they should continue to play the vital part that they are playing throughout the world today.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I should like to raise two points with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. I realise that he may not be able to answer immediately. The first is in connection with "Subhead L—Miscellaneous Allowances, etc." on page 22 of the Army Estimates. I notice that the outfit allowance is to be reduced to almost a third of what it was the previous year. No doubt there is a perfectly good explanation of this, but at first it seems a rather surprising figure.
Secondly, I should like to refer to officers' pay. I notice that there is a decrease of nearly £1 million on that item. I hope that this has something to do with the officer—other rank ratio, because as our forces over the last few years have been declining in total numbers there has been a good deal of comment about the ratio between general officers and other ranks and rather less about the ratio between officers and other ranks. There has been a tendency for the ratio of officers to increase not only in our Armed Forces here but overseas, and it has been particularly marked over recent years. Now that the Army has gone back to a voluntary basis I hope that this point is being looked at. There was a tendency in time of war to increase the number of officers for

certain jobs unnecessarily. I hope that the Army is taking a rather stricter view of this at present. The figures show that the War Office is taking action in this direction.

Mr. Wigg: Two statements have been made, by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)—and I beg the hon. Member's pardon for having interrupted him on a point of fact—and by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), and neither is correct. If fallacies are allowed to go uncorrected they do damage to the Army and bemuse public opinion.
The Minister of Defence has told us that the old target of 403,000 has gone. He mentioned 390,000 to 400,000 and I think that the figure is now 390,000 for the three Services. In that case the 182,000 becomes 167,000. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, therefore, what the target is. It is certainly not now 182,000. What I want to know—and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North would have wanted to know it—is what the planning figure is now. If the Minister intends to keep, as he clearly does, the same number of units as he now has, the consequence will be the perpetuation of this miasma that has meant that the Army has all over the world units which are not up to requirement. When the hon. Gentleman replies to the debate, I hope that not only to help me but to help the hon. Member for Cornwall, North he will tell us what the target now is. There has been argument for five years and the difficulty is that the 182,000 has been abandoned.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The target is 167,000, with the possibility of going up to a ceiling of 182,000.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman has not followed my point. The figure is not 167,000 in any case.
Let us take the proceedings stage by stage. In 1957 no target was established. The next year there was a figure of 165,000, but this added up not to 375,000 but to 388,000. Then the next year 15,000 were added to make it 403,000. Now the Minister says that that figure is abandoned. It is now 390,000. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North will find from the Defence Estimates that the


Government admit, though naturally without any fanfare of publicity, that they will not get either the Navy figure or the Air Force figure. But they say that the figures we have are the figures they wanted all the time and they are the exact figures that those Services require. The target clearly is not 182,000. We have not been told what it is.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member did not listen to me. I attended the earlier debate and heard his long speech on this matter. We need not enter now into the question whether there are under-manned battalions all over the world. The target at the moment is 167,000 for recruiting. That is the figure we are trying to reach, and if we secure a higher figure all the better.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member is quite wrong. It is extraordinary. It only goes to show the abysmal ignorance of hon. Members opposite. A figure of 167,000 has never been the figure at any time. That is a figure which the hon. Member has thought of all on his own. The figure of 167,000 is the new target figure one arrives at if one takes 15,000 from 182,000, but the target of 182,000 has now gone and we have not been told what the new figure is, and obviously this ties up very closely not only with what has happened but what will happen next year.
If the Government have welshed on pay it should be remembered that they introduced the pay figures in the first instance not because they were interested in the welfare of the Army but because for political reasons they had to reach a figure of 165,000. If they now change the policy they welsh on the pay because there is no longer the priority to secure the troops. In any case, it is perfectly clear that the political obsession with the Government is to make some pretence of reaching the Army target, and that is why they are prepared to admit that they will get neither the Navy target nor the Air Force target. But what is in the public mind is that in the relations between this country and S.A.C.E.U.R. and the Pentagon the Government have also welshed, not only in terms of the Army figure but in terms of the overall figure. I do not want to take part in any polemics with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. I should be at a considerable disadvantage if I did, but I

ask the Government to tell us what the figure is now. Are we and the Army to be left again in doubt? I am sorry that I have had to raise this matter. I would not have raised it had the hon. Member for Cornwall, North not made what might have been, after all, a Freudian slip.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I see that we are having to pay less money on officers this year than we had to pay last year, but I understand from details elsewhere in the Estimates that the number of officers coming forward to join the Army is today sufficient. Is that the case? Are there sufficient numbers of officers going to Welbeck College, and is my hon. Friend satisfied with their quality?
I have been told that because they go to Welbeck and are specialists they tend to be in a slightly different category when later they join the Service. They tend to be regarded as egg-heads or to be in some way different. I hope that this is not the case. It is essential that general service officers should have technical qualifications nowadays and it should not be regarded as extraordinary if they are specialists in scientific subjects. I hope that the intake into Welbeck College is satisfactory and that they are joined into the Army in a way that does not distinguish them except by their talent.
It is clear from the Vote that the number of N.C.O.s in the Army is not sufficient nor, if I may make so bold as to say it, is the tradition of becoming an N.C.O. quite so honoured as it was in the past. I have raised this matter before privately with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He will therefore have anticipated what I have to say and I will cut it short.
Far too many people today are trying to be officers and do not appreciate the great prestige and usefulness which they would be able to have to fulfil if they were to be non-commissioned officers. I believe that the Regular Commissions Board has far too many people coming forward to it to be officers. I recently paid a visit, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was kind enough to arrange, and I understand that, on an average, more than half the young men coming forward to


be officers fail on interview by the Board.
One can understand what a shock this is to the self confidence of a man of 18 or 19. Presumably, those who have failed have not exactly understood what qualifications the Army was looking for, and they come forward full of confidence, the darlings of their families and the prides of their schools, only to be turned away—disappointed in life at that early age.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say in what respects they fail?

Mr. Kershaw: They fail in the general subjects of the interview—on the various intelligence, initiative and leadership tests, not in scholastic ways. The various tests are scientifically and fairly devised by the Board.
Such a high rate of failures is very harmful to the boys concerned and also to the Army, because these are all young men who have distinguished themselves in their school careers. The recruiting officers and others have thought them fit to be officers. Then they come forward to the board, and at this first big test in their lives find themselves considered unsuitable.
I wonder whether we have not been directing too much propaganda towards trying to persuade people to come forward to be officers in the Army. There is all the propaganda one sees on hoardings and elsewhere depicting the gallant young officer sitting on top of an armoured car in the Arabian Peninsula. This makes these young men think that they must be officers or nothing—either officers or sweeping the barrack floors—and it is quite untrue.
Of the 50 per cent. turned down, I doubt whether very many go back to the Army prepared to become non-commissioned officers and to fulfil the rôle which the sergeant major and the warrant officer fulfilled so nobly in the past, and without which no Army can function properly.
I wonder whether the recruiting officer is the best person to recommend a young man for a commission. I believe that most of those who have failed were recommended first by recruiting officers. These officers are people of great experience, but when a likely young chap

comes in, looking bright and cheerful, the recruiting officer naturally wants to put up his score and says, "You will do well as an officer," and puts him down for a commission. The young man then has the right to go before the board. In the short acquaintance which the recruiting officer has with the recruit, I do not believe that it is possible for him to form a right judgment.
Perhaps the right to go before the board should be restricted. Perhaps application should only be made after three months' service and if the man's commanding officer makes a recommendation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should concentrate propaganda on making people realise the position of the non-commissioned officers. I see that, according to page 216 of the Estimates, a warrant officer can reach over £800 as an income besides his accommodation, etc. A warrant officer who is a tradesman can get nearly to £850, and a warrant officer who is a technician goes to nearly £1,000 a year.
5.15 p.m.
These are substantial incomes for substantial and honourable jobs. It is far better to try to do such a job than a job which one is perhaps not fully suited to do. I believe that this problem does not extend only to the Army. It is one of the things lacking in our modern life that there are not quite so many people as in the past willing to do what I call the foreman's or charge hand's job. They are either going to be top dog or they will do nothing at all. I hope that, in future, we will be able to correct this tendency.
I also wanted to call attention to the position of the officer commissioned from the ranks after long service, usually after twenty-two years. These officers are often commissioned to carry out a temporary job only for a year or two years at a time. This is extremely unsettling. I know that they have the opportunity to take their pensions and go out of the Army without taking a commission. But we need them in the Army and we would not commission them if they were not fit to do the job. They should have some sort of security. Perhaps they are teaching in training establishments, but all the time, hanging over their heads, is the possibility that


in eighteen months or so they will not be required any more and will be turned out to civil life.
A change in these circumstances would do much for these men who have served for twenty-two years, enabling them to do the job required without feeling unsettled. Perhaps consideration might be given to improving these conditions and for putting these commissions on a longer term basis.
What reason, except tradition, is there for paying the ladies less than the men? I suppose that this has something to do with the public service, but they do their jobs just as well as the men do theirs. Married allowances are given to men for the additional responsibilities which they are always supposed to have, but could we not consider putting the girls on the same basis as the men? They do a splendid job and, from my personal experience, I know how very well trained and excellent they are. I hope that my hon. Friend can give consideration to these points.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I will try to reply to the points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee. I am afraid that I cannot promise that it will be a very detailed reply, but the speeches have been, inevitably, seriated and I will try to reply in the same way.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked me why we have come to the Committee, knowing that the implementation of the pay review is in prospect in April and that it will involve additional sums, without providing for it in these Estimates. The answer is that these Estimates had already been compiled and had gone to print before the discussions resulting in the present pay recommendations had been brought to a conclusion, and it was, therefore, impossible to incorporate the results of the review in the current Estimates. This will not deprive the Committee of an opportunity, on the Supplementary Estimate, or subsequently, of discussing the results of the review. This is not, I am assured, an uncommon thing to have happened.
The hon. Gentleman repeated a number of arguments about the pay review which we debated the other day on

Vote A. I can only repeat that we have honoured our obligation arising from the acceptance by the Government of the Grigg recommendations, but that the implementation of our obligation is subject to the national policy of the pay pause. I am convinced that the Army and the other Services understand the position very well.
The hon. Member asked what steps we have taken to find out the reactions to the Government's decision. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and of myself to acquaint ourselves with the feeling in the Army on all matters such as this. We have done so, and I can assure the Committee that, while no one claims that the Army is pleased about this, I believe that it accepts the position. In so doing, the Army is showing extremely good sense, because the implementation of the review in this way, as part of the policy of the pay pause, will help to guarantee the future value of the awards that are made and will operate to the economic advantage not only of the people in the Services but of those in every other walk of life by bringing stability to money values. The Services, I am certain, have the sense to accept these facts.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the procedure by which the Forces indicate the non-acceptance of a forcible contribution imposed upon them?

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. and learned Member is trying to be too subtle. The hon. Gentleman asked me what was the feeling about this. He knows, having been a Service man, that there are plenty of opportunities, not necessarily through official channels, open to anybody to make their opinions known to senior officers, and that there are plenty of opportunities for senior officers to do their job and assess the opinions of those around them. I say advisedly that I do not believe that I have given the Committee an unfair assessment of the climate. I do not say that the Services are pleased, but I do say that they understand.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how a private soldier can intimate that he is not satisfied, but that he understands?

Mr. Ramsden: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make a number of speeches drawing on his experience as a


private soldier, and I do not think he needs me to tell him that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) raised the question of boys' training, and asked what we could do further in the Army to make certain that we got hold of people young, in order to counteract the disadvantage which, at first sight, the Army would appear to have in competing for the available recruits with industry and other occupations. My right hon. Friend said enough the other day to show that by our planned expansion of boys' units, junior leader regiments and other training units for boys, we foresaw the advent of the bulge in the birth-rate, and have made our plans to take advantage of the increased number of people coming forward.
In reply to my hon. Friend's suggestion that we might make a payment in the form of a bounty or scholarship for boys educated at technical schools and willing to accept a liability for six years' service in the Regular Army after leaving school, I should say that this is a new and interesting suggestion. We will study it, and consider whether it could be reasonably fitted in with the other schemes I have mentioned in order to enlist boys and young men with a view to employing them as tradesmen or technicians. As to his other point about the possibility of lowering the age of enlistment, I was interested to hear his suggestion, and I agree—and I think the Committee will agree—that young men today become mature at a younger age, but there would be difficulties about following the line my hon. Friend suggested.
For one thing, it would require amendment of the Army Act, which would be possible, but would take time. Fox another, to throw a boy of 17½ years of age straight into a barrack room is rather like throwing a non-swimmer in at the deep end. One of the characteristics of the present arrangements that we are making for training boys is the very special care which we are devoting to their handling in the early stages, and one of the limits to the expansion of these arrangements which my right hon. Friend indicated the other day is that we observe very high standards of staffing and training. However, I will further consider the point which my hon. Friend has made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked about pay and allowances for the Gurkhas. The basic pay of Gurkha officers and men is tied to the Indian Army rates as a result of the tripartite agreement signed in 1947 between India, Nepal and the United Kingdom, and these are the rates which they get in Nepal. When they are serving in Malaya or Hong Kong, they get, in addition to this basic rate of pay and allowances, what is known as the Malayan and Hong Kong addition, which takes account of the extra cost of living in those places rather than in Nepal. Officers and men who have taken their families with them to Malaya or Hong Kong also get what is called the married accompanied supplement. In the United Kingdom, where we have all been very pleased to welcome the advance party of Gurkhas last week, comimissioned officers get the full rate of British Army pay and allowances, and the Queen's Gurkha officers get special rates of pay and allowances appropriate to them. Gurkha other ranks get special United Kingdom allowances on top of the basic rate of pay, which makes their total remuneration almost the same as that of the British soldier.

Mr. Wigg: At present, the Gurkhas' rates of pay are shown in the Army Estimates in two places—on page 20 which shows the rate chargeable to Vote 1, E, and then we are referred to page 11. A footnote to Appendix II on page 223 refers to the special rates of pay that are paid in addition to soldiers serving with the Brigade of Gurkhas. I suspect that these allowances relate to British soldiers—other ranks serving with the Brigade of Gurkhas and not to Gurkha members of that Brigade. Is that so or not?

Mr. Ramsden: I suspect that it is so, because the footnote is to that part of the Appendix which deals with the rates of pay and allowances of British officers and other ranks.

Mr. Wigg: Now that the War Office is bringing the Brigade of Gurkhas to this country, and they are therefore an accepted part of the British Army here, would it not be as well to print the rates of pay of British and Gurkha officers and other ranks as an Appendix to the Army Estimates, so that we know where we stand?

Mr. Ramsden: I will certainly look into that suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked me about the outfit allowance and why the provision for it was reduced in this year's Estimate. The reduction is due to the fact that in the previous year a special payment was made to all serving officers on account of the reintroduction of service dress. They all got it. In a normal year, the allowance is paid to officers only on first appointment. I can say in reply to the other question which my hon. Friend asked me that the reduction in the amount of pay for officers in this Vote reflects a reduction in their numbers.
In reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who raised the familiar question of numbers—

Mr. Digby: Is the whole question of the officer ratio being looked at now that we are returning to a volunteer Army?

Mr. Ramsden: Yes, Sir. That is under examination. There is nothing more that I can usefully say to my hon. Friend on that point at the moment. Nor have I anything which the hon. Member for Dudley would consider useful to tell him in the question of numbers. I cannot go further than my right hon. Friend did the other day when he said:
It may be that when all the staff tables have been revised, in the course of the next few months, our manpower requirements will be a little different from the previous one but we know enough already for me to be able to say "—
and this is the important thing—
that the variation will not be large."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 611.]
I am not going beyond that. I am afraid that that must also be my reply to the hon. Member for Dudley—

Mr. Wigg: I can understand the difficulty of the War Office. It is changing its mind, and, for political reasons, wants to conceal this fact, but will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, or talk to his right hon. Friend and get him to agree that when the War Office makes up its mind, it will not conceal the fact—many of us are interested in this—but that an announcement will be made to the House of Commons about what the new planned figure will be?

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman knows that we always tell him as much as we can, because if we do not, he usually finds out. We shall give him the information as soon as we have completed our studies and at the appropriate time.
5.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) asked whether I was satisfied with the number of applicants coming forward to become officers. Although we have shortages in certain corps, notably the Royal Army Medical Corps, the general picture of officer recruiting is good, and the intakes to Sandhurst and Welbeck are satisfactory both in numbers and quality.
My hon. Friend and I have discussed the questions of people applying to go to Sandhurst after a preliminary period in the ranks, and long-service commissioned officers. I am not ready to give the reply that I promised on the first of those questions. On the second, I can only say that although there is an amount of insecurity inherent in the job, these officers take it on in the full knowledge of what is implied in it. We can offer engagements of this kind—and we have plenty of applicants for them—only if we are allowed to keep a certain amount of flexibility as to how long the engagements should continue, but I will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind, and write to him on the other question.
I have tried to answer, although perhaps rather untidily, most of the points made, and I hope that the Committee will now be content to pass this Vote.

Mr. Paget: I do not entirely follow this mysterious state of unconsenting understanding. Apparently the Forces are willing to accept £9 million being forcibly taken from them as their contribution to the Government's policy. Am I to understand that Service men have been persuaded that this is necessary to save the value of their pay, and that this sum affects the position, whereas less than half a cruiser which might perhaps be put back for a year does not affect it?

Mr. Ramsden: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is being unnecessarily difficult and perverse in misunderstanding what I have tried to say. He has, from his side of the Committee,


a fair point against the way we have done this. He may dislike the whole policy of the pause, but that is a matter for debate, and we have debated it. I have given my opinion that this is a policy which is intelligible to sensible people, and that the Services, which consist of extremely sensible people, broadly see the advantages of the policy at which we are aiming. It is my opinion that they accept the position, bearing in mind that part of the results of the recent review will be implemented on 1st April.

Mr. Paget: Whether it is sensible or not is a matter of opinion. The pay pause may also be a matter of opinion, but whether it is honest is not a matter of opinion. It is dishonest. It is difficult to deal with a voluntary Army if one starts being dishonest.

Mr. Morris: Having listened to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for War, I have come to one conclusion, and one only, that on the questions I asked him about pay, both he and his right hon. Friend are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The hon. Gentleman said that he had acquainted himself with the feelings of the Army. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was chided for being unnecessarily difficult and perverse in putting questions to him about his statement.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Services, while not being pleased—and as a student of human nature I can understand someone not being pleased at not receiving that to which he is entitled—understand why they are not getting their full entitlement. The hon. Gentleman also said that there were ways of testing the feeling of people in the Army—through senior officers.
Not one iota of evidence has been placed before the Committee about the feelings of the Army. During the defence debate the Secretary of State for War said that he believed that the Services would not wish to be excepted from the pay pause, and now we have been told by the hon. Gentleman that he has acquainted himself with the feelings of the Army.
How were these feelings ascertained? Who was asked? Can the Secretary of State for War place his hand on his heart and say that one corporal was consulted,

or that one private soldier was consulted? I am merely asking questions to discover what happened. The Minister stated categorically that the Government believed that the Services were prepared to accept this situation, and, though not pleased about it, understood why it was necessary.
If a categorical statement of that nature is made, it must mean that men who have contracted to serve for a considerable period of time and, therefore, cannot leave the Army at short notice have expressed their opinions. We should be told how many Service men were consulted. Has the War Office caused any inquiries to be made to discover whether a substantial proportion of Service men accept this delay in the implementation of the pay award? If this has been done, we should be told about it. If we are told that there has been an inquiry; if we are told that people in the Army have been interviewed, that a number of private soldiers, fusiliers, corporals, sergeants and captains have been asked for their opinions, we should be told how this was done.
The Under-Secretary should not expect the Committee to accept his statement, "I have acquainted myself with the feelings of the Army." How was this done? Whom did he ask? When there is such a welshing as this on pay to which the Army is entitled, a Minister should not categorically state, "I have acquainted myself with the feelings of the Army", or, "I believe that the Services would not wish to be excepted from this pay limitation".
I was a National Service man. My rate of pay was 22s. 6d. a week, and I know how a soldier counts each and every shilling. I cannot believe that the Services are prepared to accept this situation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has definite information that the Army does not accept this?

Mr. Morris: It may be that because English is my second language and not my first I did not make myself clear. I was not making an affirmative statement. I was merely referring to what two Ministers said. If the hon. Gentleman was present during the defence


debate, he must have heard what his right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Paget: If one has one's pocket picked, the prima facie case is one of dissatisfaction.

Mr. Morris: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend.
Perhaps I might quote the following figures to the Committee. Mathematics is not my strong point, and if I have made a mistake no doubt I shall be corrected. By the failure to implement in full the recommendations of the Grigg Report, a private soldier stands to lose £13 6s. a year. He will get £280 this year, rising in April to £293 6s., and then he will have to wait until the following year before the next increase [takes him up to £306 12s. He will, therefore, lose £13 6s. That has completely gone. Have any private soldiers been asked whether they are willing to lose £13 6s.?
The married private soldier will lose £20 6s.—almost 8s. a week. Have any of those soldiers been asked what they think about it? The married sergeant loses £30 15s., and the captain £15—almost £1 a week. Can the Under-Secretary tell us that all these categories understand the situation and are prepared to accept it without complaint? I should like some evidence from the Minister that such inquiries have been made and of whom.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell me what kind of employment will be given to the Gurkha detachment which is over here? Can he reassure me that these troops will be given guard duties in London—perhaps at Buckingham Palace—in the coming summer, and will give displays throughout the country? What ceremonial functions will they perform? I hope that they will be given an opportunity to do these things.

Mr. Wigg: I support the plea made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). The year before last I went to the School of Infantry to see a demonstration by a company of Gurkhas drilling with the F.N. rifle. It was a joy to see them. When their band played on Horse Guards Parade I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to come with

me. I took him there under false pretences, having assured him that he would see a masterly display of exercises with small arms. Unfortunately, although we heard the music we did not see the display.
I am sure that many hon. Members would be interested to see the Gurkhas drilling with this weapon, which at one time was thought not to fit in with any drill movements. If such a demonstration were given in New Palace Yard we might even persuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) once again to join a company of the Home Guard if the Government see fit to form one. I am sure that the public would be extremely interested to see a demonstration by these troops, and since their employment here as part of the Strategic Reserve is a new step, which has been accepted by hon. Members on both sides, I hope that the hon. Member will recommend to his right hon. Friend the adoption of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: When the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) raised the question of the difficulty of obtaining a sufficient number of N.C.O.s and warrant officers, I thought that the Minister missed the point. If the hon. Member for Stroud was not putting that point, I should like to do so now. It is not disputed that it is fairly easy to recruit large numbers of people who would like to be officers. There are many reasons for this. The problem is not that of recruiting a large number of officers—of which there seems to be an almost inexhaustible pool—but of recruiting good N.C.O.s.
I would not presume to speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Stroud, but I understood him to ask why, when these people—many of whom are interested in a military career—are found to be patently unsuitable to be officers when interviewed, they are then lost to the Army, instead of becoming warrant officers or N.C.O.s at a later stage. It does not appear to be a question of pay. The rate of pay of the warrant officer compares very favourably with the rates paid to many other sections of the community—for instance, to Members of Parliament. A warrant officer can now


get more than £800 a year, plus his keep.
The difficulty appears to be that in 1962 there still exists a very archaic difference in social treatment. The Army still draws too clear a social distinction between the officer and the noncommissioned officer or private. The distinction is less marked than it used to be, but it still exists, and is far greater in the Army than it is in civilian life, where the comparable categories are the managerial staff and the foreman and chargehands. Almost all these differences have long been discarded in industry as being outdated, but they exist in the Army today, and seem to be a deterrent to recruitment.
Recruitment of nursing staff has been more successful. In this week's Time and Tide, which can be purchased for 1s., there was an excellent article dealing with the serious problems facing civilian nursing services in recruiting nursing staff. If we examine the Q.A. scales for qualified State registered nurses we find that the Army is offering a wage of £584 a year, rising to £666. This is considerably higher than the sum offered in civilian hospitals for people with identical qualifications, who are paid £525, rising to £656 a year.
The position appears to be even better from the point of view of the career grade. I believe that the comparable rank in the Q.A. is captain, in respect of which the scale goes from £711 to £894, which compares favourably with the civilian scale, for people with identical qualifications, in that it is £186 more at the bottom of the scale and £238 more at the top. It is essential that at least some part of the Government service should be able to attract a sufficient number of nurses.
There seems to be a woeful lack of information about this. A week ago last Monday I telephoned the Ministry of Defence to ask how many nurses there were in the Services. I have since telephoned three times, and have still been unable to find out. I asked about rates of pay, but after making three telephone calls I looked up Whitaker's Almanack. It might be worth purchasing a copy for the Ministry of Defence. It is a mine of information for people dealing with queries of this type. In this highly competitive field—in terms of

civilian employment—the Army is able to compete on equal terms, and with better salary scales, and is, therefore, able to attract the people it wants in this grade to do work virtually identical to that which they do in civilian life.
The problem that exists right the way through the Army, namely, the attitude adopted towards the officer and the noncommissioned officer, respectively, is completely non-existent in relation to the private and the tradesman. If we look at the people who are equivalent to the mass of the nursing service in civilian hospitals, there is the private, Grade 1, which, I suppose, would be a substitute for the majority of nursing orderlies, and there is a salary rate—no scale, just a flat rate—of £265 a year.
A person with identical qualifications in a civilian hospital—I am quoting hospitals, because this is one of the few spheres in the Army which is directly comparable with civilian employment-doing an identical job—

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg indicated dissent.

Mr. Marsh: My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but the Q.A.R.A.N.C. have S.R.N. qualifications.

Mr. Wigg: I should have thought that the Army has shown what almost amounts to genius when dealing with the Q.A.R.A.N.C. other ranks. The Army has solved the problem by taking in girls and putting them on a training "roundabout". Many of them would probably find great difficulty in getting into civilian hospitals, perhaps because of a deficiency in educational qualifications.
They go into the Army and the Army trains them and in many cases they come out with S.R.N. qualifications, but in my opinion they are in no sense comparable with civilian student nurses. I speak with some knowledge of the subject, because until recently I had a daughter in the Q.A.'s and I got my information from her.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
My point is that if we look again at this article, which it is convenient to do as it contains all the figures, we find that in 1960 there were in British hospitals in civilian service 54,392 full-time qualified nurses; but there were 59,852 nurses


in training. So the position in civilian hospitals is that they are staffed with untrained staff. The idea that civil hospitals are staffed with qualified staff is a myth. They are not, and they have not been for many years.
With respect to my hon. Friend, I should have thought that at any rate in this sphere the nursing orderly in the Q.A. and, say, the Class I private, compares broadly with the person carrying out the broad range of these functions in a civil hospital. I think that the Services show a sense of genius because they recognise this problem. In civil nursing an enormous amount of time is spent training people, in the full knowledge that the majority will leave, either because they find better jobs or because they do not like the training or, in some cases, because nature has its way and they get married.
In the Army they go in the career grade as nursing orderlies and if they want training they get it. Of course, some of them get married, too, but we cannot hold the War Office responsible for that.
My point is that when we consider Grade I, the average rate is £265 a year, but the comparable income for those people in civilian hospitals is £575 a year.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Do not they get their keep?

Mr. Marsh: Of course. But staff resident in hospitals get their keep. They may pay a small contribution, but residence on the job is a feature of military hospitals as well as civilian hospitals.
The point I am trying to make—that does not invalidate the argument at all—is that there seems to me to be a problem right through the Army. If one looks at the officer in the Army, in this sphere—sensibly because it wants the person—the Army pays a salary which, at the minimum end of the scale, is £186 in excess of that obtainable in civilian life, and, at the maximum, is £238 in excess of that paid for the identical job.
This is a good thing. It is good commercial practice. The market rate is paid for staff at the rate at which staff can be employed. But in the case of the unskilled or semi-skilled person the

Army pays £315 a year less than is being paid for the identical job in a civilian hospital.
I come back to what I hope was the point raised by the hon. Member for Stroud. One of the main problems facing the Army is that the conditions and standard of commissioned officers is still too far divorced from that of other ranks. It is now clear that officers can be obtained in very good quantities. But it is equally obvious—my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley makes this point on every possible occasion—that one cannot get the large mass of other ranks which it is essential to have if the Service is to tick over.
I ask the Minister, therefore, whether consideration should not be given to recognising that the basic structure, the basic difference between commissioned officers and other ranks represents a major difference which no longer exists in civilian employment. While we are able to compete in terms of commissioned officers precisely because the commissioned officer rank, even that of lieutenant, offers, in terms of standards, something far in excess of anything a person can get in a comparable job in any sphere in civilian life, the attraction for other ranks is so much less.
So long as there is this big difference it will continue to be impossible to attract people to the lower ranks which it is essential to fill in order to make the Service work.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to press the point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Can the Minister tell us what action he has taken to discover the opinion of ordinary soldiers about the pay reductions? What consultation has the Minister had with soldiers in Scotland? Has he had consultations in Glasgow, Edinburgh, or Aberdeen? I cannot understand the Minister of Defence making a statement without having taken the opinion of a cross-section of Scottish soldiers. I cannot see the kilted soldier in Aberdeen agreeing to a pay reduction unless the whole character and thinking of men in Aberdeen has completely changed.
I should like the Minister to give some facts, to tell us how the Minister of Defence came to make what would seem to be a very remarkable statement


recently. I am quite sure that this statement will be read with very great surprise by people in Scotland. The recruiting figures in Ayrshire—so I am told by the Secretary of State for War—have gone up to about 13 a month. But if potential recruits get the idea that pay expectations are not coming up to what was promised, perhaps the figure will go down from 13 to 6.
When the Minister of Defence made his statement in the House I interrupted him—other hon. Members interrupted him as well—to ask about the trade unions. The Minister puffed out his chest grandiloquently as he stood at the Dispatch Box, and said, "I am the trade union leader for the forces." How does a trade union leader get in touch with the rank and file? What happens when a soldier who has read the statement wishes to say, "That is not exactly the opinion of the men in our battalion"? If soldiers protested to the commanding officer, what reply would they get? Would they be told, "You cannot pursue this, because if you do, you are likely to cause discontent in the forces"?
Unless the Minister has any definite evidence to back up (he categorical pronouncement which he made from the Dispatch Box, I think that the hon. Member for Aberavon is justified in asking what are the facts. What is the machinery? How is opinion consulted in the rank and file of the Army? I should like to know especially what were the reactions and replies of soldiers in Aberdeen who were consulted about this pay pause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I want to make a suggestion to help the Minister out of the difficulty in which he is placed on this question of the alleged acceptance by the forces of the pay pause. The Minister's statement was most ill-advised. If the tale is spread abroad that the pay pause is accepted by the forces, it is almost an invitation to mutiny.
What about the next time? The members of the forces will have to make their feelings much more apparent. The Minister would have been much more candid and effective had he said that the members of the forces recognise that a particularly "lousy" trick has been

played on them, but that as a particularly "lousy" trick has also been played on the rest of the population they are prepared to put up with it. That would have been a more accurate description of the state of affairs.
My suggestion for helping the Minister out of his difficulty is this. We can test the feeling of the forces. Why not take a Gallup poll? We have had recent evidence that Gallup polls may be more accurate than many of us would wish. It would not be very expensive. I am sure that Mr. Durant could fix it up in a few days, and the Minister could report the forces' feelings to us even before the next by-election results are known. We could have that simple question put to the members of the forces, and find out how many of them actually like having their pocket picked—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Whereupon The GENTLEMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Army Reserve Act, 1962.

2. Largs Burgh Confirmation Act, 1962.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £133,080,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Mr. Foot: When I was so royally interrupted I was about to say that if a Gallup poll, or some other poll, were taken on the matter, the Government might be able to discover accurately how many members of the forces like having


their pockets picked, how many do not know and how many find the transaction positively distasteful.

Mr. Ramsden: I find it difficult to add to what I have said about pay. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) tried to put into my mouth words which I believe I did not say and which certainly I did not intend to say. I did not say that all the Services like the present position. That would have been an unlikely proposition to put forward. All I said was that I believe that they understand the reasons behind it and the implications of the pay pause policy, as I believe does the country, although it may not like it. I cannot go further than that.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked some further questions about the Ghurkas. I have noted what they said about the employment of these fine troops on ceremonial duties in London. I am sure that it would give general satisfaction if some of them could be seen in the capital. We will see whether something can be arranged during their stay in this country.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) made some comments on the recruitment of nurses. I am glad to say that we are not dissatisfied with this position, although we exact extremely high standards and are as selective as we can be. The figures which he gave for the pay of a nursing private in the Army were slightly misleading when compared with the pay of a nursing orderly in the National Health Service, because the nursing private also gets food, accommodation and all found, whereas the nursing orderly in a civilian occupation has to pay for board and lodging.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the attractive conditions which we are offering to recruit nurses, and I hope that as a result of his remarks, and the publicity which they may receive, we shall be even more successful in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £133,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1963.

Orders of the Day — Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,900,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 240,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 233,000 other ranks). Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 225,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I have one or two questions which I wish to ask quickly. The first relates to Subhead A of Vote 2. I cannot understand the reference to the Regular Reserve of Officers. On page 29, it is stated:
The Regular Army Reserve of Officers is divided into three classes.
I assume that in Class II and Class III there must be a fairly substantial number of officers who would come under this heading. Yet on page 30, opposite Regular Reserve Officers, I find, "Nil". I do not understand that. It may mean that all the officers are recruited under the Army Emergency Reserve and come under that heading, but that does not seem a plausible explanation. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that point.
My second question comes under Subhead D, "Territorial Army Works, Buildings and Lands". I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that the Army Territorial Service is not buying more land. Goodness knows, it has enough already.
Under Subhead Z, there is a reference to receipts from property sales. It seems madness if, at the same time, they are still buying more land for more buildings. Surely they have enough land in their possession, and there ought to be no additional expenditure under this heading.

Mr. Morris: I wish to ask some questions about the Reserve Forces and the Territorial Army and Cadet Forces. I have been trying to work through the various categories of reserve personnel, and I should declare a slight interest for I appear to be in the Army General Reserve, which, I understand, is the Reserve with the least obligations. A sum of £20 million is involved.
I wish to ask some specific questions on a subject which may well be covered in this Vote or in Vote 1. Has this Vote any effect on the number of Regular Army personnel who are engaged in the work of preparing camps for the Territorial Army and the Combined Cadet Force?
I have asked this question on previous occasions. I asked it in the debate on the Army Estimates. It is well known that a large number of men of the Regular Army have been employed on the necessary work of putting up tents and generally servicing the Territorial Army. I think that this is not a good thing for the Regular Army to do, and I should like to know whether it is covered by this Vote, and how many men will be engaged on this work this year.
I believe that it is fundamental that men of our Regular Army should not be engaged in these tasks if, at the end of the year, when the Territorial Army season ends, they find themselves not in the right and proper stage of training that they should be. The situation would be very much worse if any of the men in the Strategic Reserve comprised in this Vote engaged in these tasks.
Another question which I have asked before concerns the training of the "Ever-readies". While there is a pool of trained ex-National Service men available from which the "Ever-readies" can be trained there should be no difficulty in the training of the "Ever-readies". I would prefer that they were trained not in the Territorial Army, but on a separate basis, preferably with the units of the Regular Army to which they would be attached if trouble should ever come. Is there any provision in the Vote to give to the "Ever-readies" some extra training over and above Territorial Army training? Is there any provision for the paying of "Ever-readies" for this purpose?
I realise the problem that arises when this pool of ex-National Service men has dried up. The "Ever-readies" then will be simply T.A. trained men. In my opinion, that training, however good it may be, will not be enough for them to fulfil the rôle which they will be called upon to fulfil with the Regular Army. Harm will be done to the Territorial Army unit in the first instance, because men will be instantly whisked away from

that unit and they may be called upon to fulfil important rôles with the Regular Army. If their training is not adequate they will not be able to fulfil that rôle properly. Is there provision in the Vote to give these men, particularly those who are not ex-National Service men, other training short of the six months' training that they may well be called upon to undertake? I am thinking of some type of training over and above Territorial Army training.
We have been told that the Territorial Army is to take part in an exercise, to be held in September. Is provision made for that in this Estimate? What is the estimated expenditure that the Government have in mind for this special exercise?
I notice from Subhead D, "Territorial Army Works, Buildings and Lands"—that the figure has gone up from £2,400,000 for 1961–62 to over £3 million this year. This is a substantial increase. I should like to know the reason for it. Strictures have been made in the past on the buildings of the Territorial Army, but I am not making any this evening. Has any study been made of the comparative cost of putting up Territorial Army buildings through private contracts compared with the cost of the Regular Army putting up its own buildings? Is it more expensive pro rata to put up buildings for the Territorial Army than for the Regular Army? Perhaps we may have some explanation of this increase.
Another question is: how does the number of civilians employed on the staff of the Territorial Army compare with the situation pre-war? We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that the reorganisation of the Territorial Army announced in Cmnd. 1216, is now complete. Since we are back to a fairly normal situation, can we be told whether any comparison has been made between the number of civilians now employed in the Territorial Army—ex-officers and people of that category—and the number pre-war.

Mr. Ramsden: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked me a question on a technicality about the presentation of the figures for the reserve of officers. I shall have to write to him, because I cannot answer him at the moment.
My. hon. Friend also asked me about our land holdings, and why we are still buying land in the United Kingdom. The position is that overall the Department has reduced its land holdings, following the reduction in the size of the Regular Army, and that we are now in the course of releasing about 146,000 acres. Up to the present we have actually given up about 118,000 acres. My hon. Friend will realise that it is necessary from time to time, while allowing some land to go, to acquire other land. We do so only when we have to meet the changing needs of the Army.
For example, new Army information offices are being acquired to help my right hon. Friend with his recruiting drive. We have to buy sites for the provision of married quarters, but they do not amount to a very great acreage. Also we sometimes have to acquire small extensions to existing areas of War Department land, such as the training areas, to enable the Department to concentrate in one location and release land elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked how much assistance would be given to the Territorial Army by the Regular Army during the coming training season. I believe that he has a personal interest in this, having once, as a National Service man, found himself looking after a Territorial Army camp. I appreciate the hon. Member's personal interest. It is impossible at this stage to give him a figure of the actual number of Regulars involved in assisting the Territorial Army in this way, because the arrangements to do this job are made by commands from within their own resources. When they have calculated what they need they make bids to the War Office for any assistance they cannot provide from their own sources within the command, and we have not yet had these bids for the forthcoming year.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our policy, and we see that this is enforced in the commands, that the number of Regulars used to help in Territorial camps and Territorial Army training is kept to the minimum. This is obviously sensible. On the other hand, it is all part of one Army and one defence force and it is necessary to ensure that the Territorial Army gets

its proper training; but where possible, for obvious reasons, we spare the regular manpower.

Mr. Morris: Will the Minister assure us that no unit of the Strategic Reserve is involved in this work?

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot go beyond what I told the hon. Gentleman the other night, that we shall make sure that the primary rôle of the Strategic Reserve is not in any way compromised by it, perhaps in marginal cases, having to undertake this sort of obligation. Its first priority will be to remain available for its primary rôle.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about building costs and whether he was in order in raising this question on this Vote. He certainly is in order and I can assure him that we make a very careful study of all comparable rates of building costs as between our needs for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army and those that prevail in civilian life. We do this continuously.
The explanation for the increase in the provision for building for the Territorial Army this year in this Vote is a rather special one. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman drew attention to it. The position is that the reorganisation of the Territorial Army has thrown up a number of surplus properties—drill halls, and so on—some of which have a high value for purposes of redevelopment. At the same time, a great deal of Territorial Army accommodation and property is out-of-date and needs rebuilding or modernising.
6.30 p.m.
My right hon. Friend and I are determined to ensure that, as appropriations in aid of this Vote will result from Territorial Army property coming up for disposal, the Territorial Army will get its fair share of money available in the defence budget for the rebuilding of premises of which it will get the future benefit. With this in mind we have recently agreed with the Territorial Army Advisory Council a five-year rebuilding programme. After consultation between commands and local Territorial Army Associations, we have put just over £1 million in these Estimates to ensure that a start will be made this year. We are very glad to have been able to do this. We owe it to the


Territorial Army to ensure that it gets its fair share of new buildings to replace old property which is being sold.
The hon. Member for Aberavon asked me about the training of "Ever-readies." I cannot say that in this Vote there is provision for any extra training of the "Ever-readies" over and above that which falls under their obligation as members of the T.A. It is, perhaps, worth making this point. I meant to make it in one of our earlier debates about the "Ever-readies" and their training. Hon. Members who have perhaps sometimes felt that, with the arrangements we have made the "Ever-readies" might not be sufficiently highly trained, should remember that the purpose of this reserve is to be called up to join Regular units in time of tension, not in times of actual war.
Implicit in its employment in this way is, I think, a period of time during which the men called up to join the Regular unit would be likely to be living side by side with Regulars during a period of tension, readjusting themselves to the life of a Regular service battalion, having an opportunity to shake down and brush up their individual training, and so on. This is worth bearing in mind, because it obviously will be a useful opportunity of further training for the men of this reserve over and above what they will do with the Territorial Army in the normal way.

Mr. Wigg: This is a very novel doctrine which the Under-Secretary is enunciating. As I understand, the "Ever-readies" were formed because the Government's recruiting programme has broken down. The situation might arise in the immediate future in which Regular units are under strength and the "Ever-readies" would be called up in times of tension—I thought to strengthen the Regular Army. We are now told that the raison d'être is to train them. In times of tension a Regular unit which is under-strength will have enough on its plate without having to train these new recruits.
I know that this is a slight exaggeration of what the Under-Secretary has said. I do not want to indulge in a reductio ad absurdum, but the facts are that we were previously told that this was to be a corps d'elite. We were told that the most careful selection would be made. Some of us questioned whether

a fortnight's training was quite enough to equip a man to take his place in a Regular unit. We were told that this would be enough. We are now told, as if there have been second thoughts, that it does not matter very much, because hostilities will not result. We are told that there will be a time of tension and that, therefore, these men can be called up and trained. This constitutes another change of front on the part of the Government.
I readily admit that I am pushing it a little hard. If the Government now think that a fortnight's training is not sufficient—I am inclined to agree with them; I have always had doubts about the proposal from the time I first saw it—they should go away and think again. If a moment of tension comes, clearly the Government will not take the drastic step of calling up the "Ever-readies", because that might even heighten the tension. It will become known that they are being called up. How can the Government be sure that hostilities will not result? The "Ever-readies" are to be called up because hostilities might result. As for the training programme of the "Ever-readies", the Government are to look at the problem as if, although they call them up to put the dummies in the shop window, it is absolutely certain that hostilities will not result.
This is an extremely dangerous doctrine. I have wearied the House on many occasions by referring to the almost perfect mobilisation plan, namely, that which operated in 1914. It was almost perfect in the way it operated. It is true that the rearguard action from Mons was fought by units which contained as high a percentage as 60 per cent. reservists. But they were reservists who were trained. That is why they out-fought the Germans. They had the great merit that they were the product of a long service. Now we are to have the glass topped up not by trained reservists, but by men who have had no training at all and whom it is hoped to train when they get there.

Mr. Ramsden: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great patience, but he must not say this. All along he has been attributing to me much more than I have said. Now he talks about these men having no training at all. He knows


full well the training which an "Ever-ready" will have to undergo as part of his engagement. I merely said, quite by the way, that as and when this reserve is called up there will be an opportunity in the normal course, because of the way these things are likely to happen—it is not certain—for the men to have a period in which to shake down in a Regular unit. I am not saying any more than that. The hon. Gentleman must accept that.

Mr. Wigg: I have not the least desire to be unfair. Indeed, I have said that I am pushing it a little hard.
The hon. Gentleman says that I know full well that they will have to undergo training. What training—a fortnight? What can be done with an enthusiastic young man in a fortnight, which might be as long as a year ago? It might be little more than a memory. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that a very good unit which happens to be short, let us say, of 50 men and makes them up with "Ever-readies", can take the 50 "Ever-readies" and still be effective. I do not say that that cannot happen. I say that the Government have changed their mind.

Mr. Ramsden: No.

Mr. Wigg: If the Secretary of State thought that, he was very hard put for arguments when we were considering the Army Reserve Bill. If he thought this he would have said, "Do not worry about this. We shall be very selective and choose only good material. We shall ensure that it is a corps d'elite, but the training is to be carried out after they are called up". That as what the Under-Secretary has said.

Mr. Ramsden: Mr. Ramsden indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg: The Under-Secretary must not shake his head like that. Of course, he can do so if he wants to, but it has no effect, except that his head may drop off.
If a man has had only a fortnight's training, which may be as long as 50 weeks ago, no one will argue that he is an effective soldier. Of course not. He will not be comparable to the reserves who were called up under Section B in 1914. Nor will he be in any way comparable to the National Service man

whose place he is taking and who has "gone through the mill" and is in every way a soldier.
I say this kindly, with great respect, and very sincerely. The Under-Secretary has come along today to break this one because somebody in the War Office has had second thoughts about how this will work and wants to calm public opinion. They want to calm the Army by saying, "Do not worry, boys. When they get in, the Army can perform miracles". The Army can perform miracles, provided that it is not pushed too far.
We have had other announcements from the Government about the change in their manpower targets and the fact that they are examining the question of having a corps of infantry in the constitution of the Army as a whole. We are also promised in the White Paper an examination of the reserve forces. There is a specific undertaking in the Defence White Paper that the whole of the reserve forces will be looked at again and, as I have said, it seems that some rethinking is required. I wish there had been some rethinking before the Army Reserve Bill had been introduced.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that what I have said is incorrect, or that I am making too much of this, perhaps he will set my mind at rest and relate what I have said to the statement in the Defence White Paper that there is to be a re-examination of the reserve forces.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,990,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 240,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 233,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 225,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Orders of the Day — Vote 8. Works, Buildings and Lands

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £48,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The amount of money shown under Subhead A of this Vote is to be devoted to new buildings


and is an extremely good target. I have heard from all quarters that the amount of building going on both here and overseas has been extremely well received by the Army and that we are now getting to a decent standard, particularly for married quarters. My hon. Friend is to be highly congratulated on this achievement.
I am rather concerned, however, about the figure of £190,000 in Subhead E for works services in aid of work by industry, in which it is stated:
Provision is made for capital assistance to industry engaged on production on behalf of the War Office… Provision is also included for the maintenance of buildings held as reserve production capacity.
What exactly does this mean? Throughout the Votes reference is made to the money the Army is paying to private industry to do research and development work. I am all for research and development by private industry, where necessary, but it seems that the Army is spending a large amount, perhaps larger than is necessary, and I would like an explanation of this.
On Subhead G, which deals with the purchase of land, although my hon. Friend dealt with this when we considered the previous Vote, I hope that it will only be in times of emergency that land will be purchased, or for rehousing or for new exercises. It would be monstrous if we had the Army buying up more and more land, especially considering the amount of land it already holds—and I refer to good farming and agricultural land in all parts of the country.

Mr. John McCann: We can talk about Army pay from now until Doomsday. While it is very important, the real basis of a contented Army is the assurance the men have of a continuing family life. Good married quarters represent the basis of a good Army.
In Subhead A of this Vote is shown the sum of £462,000, which it is intended should be spent in the next financial year on the provision of married quarters abroad. I suppose that this is an addition to the £1½ million which, it is expected, will be spent on services already started. But I feel that if we are to stabilise the Army abroad—and some hon. Members consider that it should be increased—this

figure will also have to be drastically increased.
Last year, I had the opportunity of travelling to Germany to see exactly how the Army of the Rhine was living. In our tour of the various Army camps we saw some of the private accommodation which the soldiers had provided for themselves and I must say, frankly, that the standard was just not good enough for the soldier of today. It is expensive, while not being very good. If the money which is now being spent to supplement the rents of inferior accommodation for the Army abroad were used for the provision of permanent and decent buildings, the type of letter from which I propose to quote would not be received by hon. Members. The Under-Secretary knows about this letter to me because, as a result of it I received a disappointing letter from him.
The letter states:
I am writing in the hope that perhaps you can help me. My husband has been in the Army for eleven years, and all this time we have been separated. Now my husband is serving in Germany and we want to be together. He has 77 points and he has been told this puts him up the top of the list for married quarters. Yet others seem to get quarters before us. My husband has objected to it, but there is nothing he can do about it. So I thought I would try to do something myself. We have a son of nine and a half. Is there anything we can do? I will be very grateful for your advice.
The Under-Secretary, who has been very kind throughout the whole of this matter and who, I believe, has done his best, explains in his letter to me that married quarters are allotted on a points system which gives credit for rank, length of service, size of family up to three children and the extent to which a family has been separated during the last three years. Here is a family which, apparently, has been losing the benefits—if "benefits" can be used in this context—of eight years' separation.
The Under-Secretary stated:
… the waiting list is liable to fluctuate as other families with more points come into the garrison and also because families already in Germany must be accommodated first when the husband moves from one station to another.
I fail to see the logic of that, because the accommodation situation in Germany is of no real importance to a serving soldier who is posted from home to a


station abroad. He needs married quarters. The only real way to have a contented Army is to offer a real family life with housing facilities which are no worse than these families have enjoyed in this country.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I wish to raise a point on Subhead G, regarding the purchase of land and buildings. I have just returned from a short visit to Sennelager, the all-arms training centre of the Rhine Army, about 25 miles from Bielefeld, in Westphalia. This is very bleak country and, at this time of the year, is extremely cold.
In the middle of this training centre there is a wonderful sports field, with facilities for playing rugby, soccer and other sports. This is of great value to the troops. I imagine that, in the sort of bleak, open country I speak of, it is the only kind of recreation and amusement available to them. While I was there a rumour was circulating among quite high authorities that this recreation field might be handed over to the Germans because of some difficulty over the cost of its upkeep.
If it were handed over to the Germans, who are also training there, the fear was expressed that it might be used as a tank training ground and that the recreational facilities now provided for the troops would be lost. I urge my hon. Friend to look at this and to allay my fears, for it would be a shame if this wonderful field, of about 100 acres, could not be kept for the Army for the period of its stay, which may be very many years indeed. These are the only facilities in the area for recreation.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with the comments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann') about married quarters. This is the one important aspect of married Army life. We must ensure that Army married quarters are as good as those enjoyed by families in civil life. However, I cannot see any provision in the Estimates for accommodation for the men immediately they come back from overseas. Frequently, when a unit comes back from overseas, a man goes to his unit and his family is split up, possibly going to relatives

and remaining there for some time. I know that there is temporary accommodation for this type of case, but I cannot see provision in the Estimates for either improvement or enlargement.
I welcome very much the increased expenditure on married quarters in the hope that the time may come when every soldier who is married gets a married quarter as of right.

Mr. Morris: I endorse everything that has been said by hon. Members, on both sides, about the need for more married quarters. The Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War confesses the disappointment of his Department this year about the number of married quarters that were put up. Paragraph 71 contains the statement that
This time last year it was possible to look forward with some confidence to a spurt in the programme for rehousing the Army in modern buildings. … In the event, progress has not been as quick as had been hoped. At home, for example, the boom in building of all kinds has slowed the pace of new work.
I shall not repeat the points I made in the Army Estimates debate, but it is obvious to everyone that housing and accommodation for our soldiers is, like council house building, at the end of the queue as compared with the Clores and the Cottons. Private building has first preference every time and accommodation for the Forces comes very much at the end of the queue.
If I understood aright the Third Report from the Estimates Committee, that Committee was dissatisfied with the explanation proffered by the War Department for the fall in the building programme. The Committee said, in paragraph 35:
The witness, when asked why only one-third of the planned expenditure for new barracks had taken place this financial year, stated that this was due to delays consequent on pressure of work in the building industry.
Question No. 449 of the evidence on this matter bears out that statement. The question was put:
Is it not very unusual for plans costing £3 million to come out in the end as an expenditure of only £1 million? 
This was the answer by the official of the War Department:
It is unusual and it is disappointing.
That sums up the position.
The Estimates Committee stated:
Your Committee do not consider that the conditions at the time the Estimates were framed differed significantly from those obtaining during the financial year. They therefore believe that the loss of so much as two-thirds of the programme must have been due in part to the Department embarking on an unrealistic programme. At the same time they find it hard to believe that so great a shortfall was due solely to this factor. In any case the Department cannot escape considerable responsibility for the substantial discrepancy disclosed.
I made this point when speaking on the Army Estimates, but if my memory serves me aright, it was not answered. Here is a grave indictment against the War Department. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies, he will meet it.
In the Estimates Committee, the following question was put by an hon. Member of the House:
Let me put it this way: are you anticipating next year having to put in a larger Estimate than you had thought this year you would have to because the delay is liable to result in an increase in costs? 
The answer was:
It will certainly mean we have to spend more money from now onwards than we had expected, as the programme will be to that extent pushed on. Whether it means that we shall spend more money next year I am not sure ".
Can the Under-Secretary clarify that statement of the witness to the Estimates Committee? Whether it means that we shall spend more money next year, I am not sure. It may merely mean that the programme lasts longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) said, it is vitally important that when men join the Army they should have every possible opportunity for the continuation of family life. If we are to have a happy and contented Army, ample married quarters are badly needed. I hope that when we discuss the Estimates in future years, horn. Members on either side will not have to read the kind of letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale read today complaining about the lack of married quarters. Can the Under-Secretary indicate how many years it will be before everyone who needs and is entitled to a married quarter will be able to have one?
I noticed, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) also noticed, that the War Office was purchasing land. Perhaps we can nave

an explanation of this. As I understood it, the War Office was selling land to a considerable extent. Like the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, I am concerned that, where possible, good agricultural land should not be used. Perhaps we may have assurances about this.
I wish to put a specific point which possibly the Under-Secretary will not be able to answer tonight because I did not give him notice. Perhaps he will give me an answer later. At Trawsfynydd, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), a large area of land is held by the War Office. I understand that there have been negotiations for the sale of the land, but they are taking a considerable time. I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary will look into this matter, and I hope that the resale of the land to the farmers can be expedited.

Mr. Ramsden: Perhaps I may begin by answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on the Supplementary Estimate. I did not deal with the point when we were debating Vote A, because it fell under the Supplementary Estimate and I thought that the hon. Member might raise it tonight. As, however, we might not get as far as the Supplementary Estimate and the hon. Member made some fairly serious charges and asked searching questions, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word about it now.
I hope to be able to convince the hon. Member that we are less blameworthy in this matter than the Select Committee implied. As the hon. Member reminded us, the Committee's criticism was based on the fact that in our original Estimates we assessed the likely expenditure on new works services to be started in the United Kingdom during this financial year as just under £3 million, whereas in the Supplementary Estimate we put the figure at £1,070,000, a difference of nearly £2 million. The Committee state that they
do not consider that the conditions at the time the Estimates were framed "—
that is, in the last half of 1960—
differed significantly from those obtaining during the financial year.
The Committee concluded that our original Estimate must therefore have represented an unrealistic programme.
It was not until the summer of 1961, however, that my Department began to run into difficulties in placing new contracts for barracks in the United Kingdom. These difficulties could never have been foreseen six or nine months earlier. Barracks are not straightforward things for the building industry to tackle. They are complicated. The builders who might have been available found that there were plenty of simpler jobs ready to hand. They lost interest in our business and, as a result, the tender prices that were being submitted to us rose sharply.
One thing that we could have done would have been to go ahead and place the contract notwithstanding the high prices that were quoted. Had we done this, the original Estimate would probably have been vindicated. We should not have built so much, but we should have built it so expensively that we should have just about come out at the original Estimate figure, and the House would have known nothing about it. That, however, would have been thoroughly irresponsible and wrong, as, I am sure, the Committee would agree.
Instead, we reviewed the scope of the services for which the high prices had been quoted and we revised and simplified one project after another so as to bring down the cost and ensure that we got value for money. All this inevitably took time. Thus, the starting of the new projects was, in many cases, delayed by several months, anything from two to eight months. This is very disappointing to my right hon. Friend and to me because we have been most anxious to press on to the best of our ability with the home building programme. But we were not prepared—I do not believe that the Committee would wish us to do so—to carry on irrespective of cost. I think that this puts a slightly different slant on our position in the matter which I hope the Committee will accept.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: The explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given seems rather more alarming than the one given to the Estimates Committee. Apparently, an estimate of about £3 million was presented, and, when it was looked at, it was decided that the Department could have what it wanted, under a simplified

scheme, for about £1 million. What has happened to the chap who gave the £3 million estimate?

Mr. Ramsden: When we receive a price which we regard as unacceptably high, we have sometimes to accept reduced and simplified standards because there is a limit to the finance which can be made available for particular projects. It may happen, after we have gone out to tender on one basis, that the tenders seem likely to be very high. Prices rise. Contracts are subject to variation when prices rise for inevitable reasons. If, as a result of these things, the result seems to come out unacceptably high, it is right that we should have another look. It is only financially responsible to do so.

Mr. Paget: One can entirely understand that attitude in regard to marginal differences which might even go up to 20 per cent., but here we are dealing with 200 per cent. If one can obtain substantially what one wants for £1 million, I should imagine that one would wish to inquire fairly closely into what was done by the people who set out the previous specifications stating that the requirements could not be met for less than £3 million. It seems a very alarming state of affairs.

Mr. Ramsden: We are talking about a programme of considerable size.

Mr. Paget: £1 million and £3 million?

Mr. Ramsden: That is the difference, but the whole programme is very much bigger than that. I will look at the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, but I hope that he will. on further consideration, feel satisfied with my explanation.
I am glad that we have had an opportunity in Committee today to think about the importance of married quarters. My right hon. Friend is under no illusion about how essential such provision is for the continued good morale of a Regular Army. When speaking about our building programme a year ago, he laid the main stress on the provision of accommodation for married soldiers and their families, and this still remains our top priority job. However, as we have had to point out in the Memorandum, there has been some delay in the provision of building works in overseas


stations. We have explained the reasons for that. Apart from this, we are maintaining the rate of progress which we started last year.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) referred to accommodation in Germany. I can tell him that new building of hirings, the type of married quarter which is prevalent in Germany, is going ahead extremely well, but naturally, some of the private accommodation which is the alternative open to a soldier who cannot qualify for a War Department hiring is not as good as we should like to see. Men are allowed to go out and have their wives with them if they can find accommodation, which, of course, has to be passed as satisfactory by the commanding officer. We have to strike a balance in these things, accepting that, if men are to have their families with them in the interests of family unity, the standards will not always be so high as in the quarters which we ourselves have built. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the letter which I wrote to him. I will look at the matter again, but I regret that I cannot hold out much hope, since the decision was based on the points system which we operate, that the answer will be any different from what I was obliged to tell him before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) asked about a sports field in Germany. I shall look into this and write to him, if I may.
The hon. Member for Aberavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) spoke about War Department land. My right hon. Friend and I are anxious not to hold any more land than we need to hold. We do not want to keep land which could otherwise be used for agriculture. We do not buy more land unless we find it essential to do so. I ask the Committee to remember, nevertheless, that this is a small island. Land is short for every sort of purpose and everyone casts envious eyes upon it. The Army needs land for training. If it is to be efficiently trained, a certain minimum amount of land suitable for training areas is and will be essential. We have to keep this in the forefront of our mind, not to speak of married quarters, barracks, and so on. Subject to that, it is our policy, subject

also to the needs of other Government Departments, to make available for other uses any surplus land which we hold.
I am familiar with the specific case in Wales to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he will excuse me, I will not go into it now. I hope to write to him about it very shortly.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Could my hon. Friend refer to the point I raised on Subhead E?

Mr. Ramsden: I apologise to my hon. Friend. He asked why it was that in Subhead E there is provision for assistance to outside industry. The reason is that—I am thinking particularly of munitions production—we cannot make everything we need for the Army in our own factories. It is sometimes an economical and sensible arrangement either by sub-contract or in some other way to arrange for the production we need to be done by private industry This, as I understand it, is the explanation of the payments for capital investment. I cannot justify each one in detail now, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in general I am satisfied that this principle of payment in aid of capital resources to be used for our purposes in industry is a sensible one which does give advantage.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I gather from what is said on page 167 that the War Department is holding buildings, presumably factories, in reserve in case it is desired to expand production. Is that what it comes to?

Mr. Ramsden: Yes, that may happen. We may have part of a factory, a shop within a factory, or even a section of a shop, and we have to maintain it. Provision must be made for the maintenance of the building in a private concern.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to one area in Wales. Will he bear in mind that there are other areas which the Armed Forces expect to vacate? I have in mind the area around Pembrey on the Carmarthen coast. I understand that this is to be vacated in the near future. In such a case, does the War Office make any effort to draw to the attention of other Government


Departments the fact that such land is being vacated, with the idea of inducing them to establish industries there, particularly in places where the introduction of industry is so vital?

Dr. Alan Glyn: Could my hon. Friend deal with the point which I raised? Is there provision in the Estimates for improving and enlarging accommodation to receive troops when they return from abroad with their families? I cannot find any in the Estimates.

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer now, but I will write to him and let him know what it is.
In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), when we have land available for disposal, as a matter of policy we offer it to other Government Departments to see whether they are interested in it. The former owners of agricultural land also have rights which, as a matter of policy, are respected. When industrial sites are involved, my right hon. Friend and I consult the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade over matters such as those which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £48,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963.

Orders of the Day — Vote 9.—Miscellaneous Effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,930,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous services, including grants in aid. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I should like to raise one or two points. First, under Subhead C, I am glad to see that the sum spent on publicity and recruiting services is increasing, but I trust that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will ensure that every penny spent in this way is well spent and that we see some dividends from it. I am sure that the  which has been spent already has been of great value in increasing recruitment.
Subhead J causes me anxiety. There is reference to a figure of £783,000 which the Army is paying in compensation for damage. I assume that this must be mostly in the United Kingdom. This is a very large sum, particularly when the number of exercises carried out in this country is not enormous. I should imagine that most of this compensation is paid for wanton damage. We have had cases in my constituency recently where members of Army training units, particularly those on young Junior Leader Regiment courses have gone out on initiative training to various parts of my constituency, especially on Bodmin Moor, and have done wanton damage to old and historic buildings.
My hon. Friend has written to me about this. He has taken the matter up, and I am pleased that it is being dealt with. This has happened time after time. Young soldiers have done an enormous amount of damage. Unfortunately, it is not confined to young soldiers; I wish that it were. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep a close watch on expenditure under Subhead J and will ensure that not a penny is wasted and that the strictest orders are given to commanding officers to the effect that the men under their command should treat civilian property with respect when they come across it in training.
Under Subhead K, there is reference to miscellaneous educational and technical training charges. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the way that the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is being run and on the valuable work which is done there. I am disturbed, however, by the figures on page 237 of the Estimates. Apparently, there are 1,029 military and civilian staff at Sandhurst. From memory, I think that there are 800 cadets there. It seems to me that 1,029 people to look after and train 800 or 900 cadets is rather excessive. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that the number of staff there is not excessive and that all is well.
Finally, under Subhead O, may I ask who goes to the National Army Museum at Sandhurst? How many civilians visit it? I am delighted that £3,000 should go to it. I am in favour of keeping it in being, but is there enough publicity about it and do enough people know about it?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I wish to refer to Subhead C, but for entirely different reasons from those of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I think that the warning which he gave that money should not be misspent is well justified, since a great deal of money on the publicity services of the Army has been misspent and misapplied.
It is a menacing and sinister fact that the Army, through its publicity services, has flagrantly intervened in Wales in the political debates of the nation. Before supporting the Vote, which, I observe, proposes an increased expenditure of more than £20,000 on the publicity services, I seek an assurance that this practice of political intervention, which is as abhorrent as it is unconstitutional, will cease. In view of the tarnished reputation of France today as a consequence of Army officers meddling mischievously in the politics of the country, we are warned of the dangers of any publicity service embarking on political adventures.
It is well known that we have, most regrettably, in my view, had some Panzer forces in Wales. A great national debate has taken place, and undoubtedly will take place again if they come again. It is to the political issues surrounding this matter to which I wish to draw attention. This would not be the place, nor would it be in order, to argue the merits of their coming. All that I seek to do at this stage is to establish that there is a political issue and then to establish that the Army's publicity services have directly intervened in it. Suffice it to say that there is a great divide on the question throughout the nation.
The Conservative Party and the Government have urged that training facilities in Wales should be given as a military necessity for N.A.T.O. On the other hand, the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress, at their annual conferences, have made it unequivocally clear that they regard the coming of the Panzers, under officers who supported the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi régime, as an insult to the memory of millions who died to preserve liberty and democracy from the German menace.
I do not wish to develop this point. I merely state that it is a political issue. The Labour Party conference rejected

the Government's view. It believed it to be a mockery to suggest that the training of young German soldiers in Wales under ex-Nazi supporters is anything but a most distressing act. Indeed, the conference considered that it is a gross provocation to the peoples of Poland and Eastern Europe, whose memories of the hell of the German occupation can be only too easily evoked.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I should be grateful to him if he could show how what he is saying is related to the Vote which we are discussing.

Mr. Abse: I am obliged, Sir Harry. The Army, through its publicity services, has one job and one job only—to keep right out of political matters.
I now wish to deal with the time prior to the arrival of these Panzer troops and then with when they arrived. It is known that on this occasion, after having first ensured that Welsh journalists, including even those on newspapers with the smallest circulations, were taken to Germany on a softening-up operation, where they were well wined and dined, as a preliminary to the arrival of the Panzers, an Army public relations office was set up as near as could be to the gates of this isolated training camp.
As I said in a letter to The Times, the office
was manned not only by public relations officers of Western Command, but drew in officers from other commands. It had attached to it at least one civilian public relations officer, a high-ranking officer to serve television and Press photographers, and an ex-journalist noncommissioned officer, not to mention the English-speaking German officers who were readily made available.
What were they there for? We want to know by what right they were there and to what purpose this battery of public relations officers assembled in this isolated spot.
The War Office, after the events that took place there, made a statement through the medium of The Times. The War Office spokesman, as reported in The Times of 11th September, 1961, said:
… any public relations staff at Castlemartin were there purely for passive reasons—the passing back of information to the powers-that-be. Their job, he said, was not to whip up support of any kind.


That statement by the War Office spokesman was rather belated. What did this battery of public relations officers do? Did they passively sit down in isolated Castlemartin to report on the song of the birds and the nature of the fauna there? Of course not. We all know what occurred.
Many Welsh Members consider that the intervention of the Army public relations officers there was nothing short of disgraceful. That is why I raise the matter now. Far from being passive, they directed an invitation to the Press giving a full schedule of the programme for the Germans while they were in Wales. They indicated the many occasions during the three-week training period when the Press would be given full facilities for interviews and photographs. This they distributed right through the Press in Wales, and in case it was misunderstood they made clear in a circulated statement that it was specifically intended that the Press should be welcome.
How welcome they were was speedily indicated on the day following the arrival of the Germans. Before any of them had been permitted to go out of the camp it was arranged through the Army public relations services that a hand-picked group of German Panzers should be sent to the nearby town under a German officer, with an Army public relations officer, for the exclusive benefit of Press photographers.
As I said in my letter to The Times:
The hapless German conscripts were given orders to do all the Press photographers asked of them, and, needless to say, Panzers were soon propped up into artificially affectionate poses with local girls.
There is no doubt that the pubertal romanticism of silly, adolescent girls was calculatingly and deliberately stimulated by irresponsible Army publicity officers.
Young and bewildered Aryan blonds who had just set foot in Wales were taken out on this curious escorted tour and were commanded to link with suitable Celtic (teen-agers in Pembroke so that photographs could be taken of the loving welcome being extended by girls who had only just set eyes on them.
The Army public relations officers, in deliberately sponsoring these photographs, put into issue the honour of

Welsh women, the overwhelming majority of whom regarded such behaviour with disgust. For what purpose and by what right did the Army public relations services, paid for by the taxapayers of Wales, among others, so traduce our womenfolk?
The Army, in its high pressure enthusiasm to sell Germans as if they were brands of detergents or soap, began to draw in its horns when it was seen what was happening. We saw the situation which arose after people had demonstrated lawfully and with discipline against the arrival of the Panzers. We had some of these teen-age girls outside the camp screaming, "We love Panzers" and jeering at demonstrating South Wales miners. People may agree or disagree on whether the Germans should be there. It is, naturally, a matter which causes profound emotion, but it is no part of the Army's task to try to intervene to sell Germans to Wales.
We give the warning that if there is any further intention on the part of the Army to intervene in this political battle, which will come about once again if there is an attempt to bring Germans into Wales, all of us who think as I do will make quite certain that the Army, as well as the Government's policy, will become involved in a grave political issue. This country has learned to make quite certain that the Army is subordinate to Parliament and is completely insulated and isolated from any political controversies that concern the nation.
I trust, therefore, that we shall have a much more satisfactory reply today than that given by the War Office spokesman who had the impudence to suggest that the rôle of the Army public relations officers was absolutely passive when they embarked on the venture which I have tried to describe.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I should like to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) in his remarkably eloquent speech. I know how close this issue is to his heart. I want to keep within the bounds of order but I think that it will be agreed that it is difficult not to convey the impression that one is anti-German in connection with this matter. I want to put the Committee perfectly at rest on that point by saying


that in the last year of my service in the war I spent my whole time with German Luftwaffe forces. I spent a year, day-in-day-out, working in close touch with them. I would point out, in spite of the publicity, that these young Germans who came to South Wales last year had no responsibility for the terrible acts which were perpetrated by their predecessors. They are just victims of the present maelstrom of European and world events.
I rise also to tell the Under-Secretary and the Committee that many Welsh Members feel as strongly about this matter as my hon. Friend has implied and has himself shown. I shall not repeat the evidence which I read in The Times and which my hon. Friend quoted. I was not present in Pembroke that morning. If I had been I should have been proudly marching with hundreds of my constituents. I feel strongly that the money which is being spent on Army publicity, and which we are now asked to increase, should be spent much more wisely than it was spent on that occasion. Calumny has been heaped on many of my constituents. They have been called everything under the sun, but there were among them on that occasion elderly ladies and men, including trade unionists, of the highest character.

Mr. S. O. Davies: And ex-Service men.

Mr. Probert: Yes, and there was nothing anti-German in their feeling. Naturally, amongst elderly ladies who had lost loved ones in the forces there was some emotion, but this was not an anti-German demonstration. We are not blaming these German troops in any way. We are merely trying to pinpoint the blame on the Army publicity service and the way it acted in this matter.
7.30 p.m.
At the moment, the Foreign Ministers are meeting in Geneva to try to bring about a solution to the problems facing the world. If publicity like this is perpetrated by people in the Army, I believe that it will make it a great deal more difficult for the Government to find a satisfactory solution through their foreign policy. The basic task of the Army publicity service is to bring about peaceful relationships between two entities—in this case, the Panzer forces, which regrettably had to come to Wales, and the Welsh people. If this is what

it achieved in what was a peaceful demonstration, then I say that it failed dismally and that its failure is not a happy augury for the future. The Secretary of State must look closely into the way in which this service was used to ensure that there is no repetition of this unfortunate event.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not wish to go into the merits of the case, and I appreciate that many hon. Members opposite feel deeply on this subject. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) that the object of the Army publicity service, whatever one feels about German troops coming here, is to try to ensure smooth relations in what could only have been a very difficult situation. I am sure that the service did its best to make the exercise as smooth as possible and tried to smooth down the objections which arose.
I join with other hon. Members in being glad to see that a larger share is being given to publicity, because we all realise that if we are to get the required number of recruits we must use every form of publicity. The Army publicity service is showing a very new look in its methods of publicity, and I welcome the expenditure for the purpose.
I have one question to put about hospital treatment. In Subhead D hospital charges are referred to. I can understand expenditure to meet the charges of civil hospitals abroad and the Royal Medical College, but I am at a loss to see where our Service men should be treated outside the National Health Service in this country. I can understand that, in some remote parts of the country, the Army might have to use non-National Health Service personnel to treat troops, but I cannot envisage this happening frequently.
I understand that the Army makes no payment for treatment under the National Health Service. I hope that cases of payment for medical treatment are rare. We have a perfectly good State service which should be used on every possible occasion.

Mr. George Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for raising the question of the activity of the publicity services of the Army during the


controversial matter of the German troops being trained in Wales. I believe that the man who should be in the dock is the Secretary of State. He has open to him avenues of publicity, both in this Committee and in the country, through which he can advance the views of the Government without using Army publicity services to suit party political aims.
It is a very serious charge that we level against the Government tonight. It is that the Government have deliberately resorted to these underhand means of using the Army publicity service—which was intended to bring recruitment to the forces and to convey an image to the British people of what life in our own Armed Forces is like—to strengthen the Government's political position concern-in e the training of German troops in Wales.
The Army's publicity arrangements were used to cast discredit on the people who demonstrated in Pembrokeshire. Statements emanated from Army officers, and were published in the Welsh Press, which should not have come from those who are in the Armed Forces of the Crown. The charges made against those who took part in the demonstration should have come from the Government Front Bench and not from the people employed in the Army publicity services.
The Secretary of State must realise that he does the Army no good by allowing the publicity services to be used for political ends, for he will create hostility where there is none towards our forces. We realise that tonight we cannot raise the whole question of the training of German troops in Wales, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is to follow the same policy with regard to the thousands of Panzer troops who are to be brought to Wales this year, then he can expect trouble both in the House of Commons and in the country—and I for one will do my best to stir trouble up, because I believe that he has no right, on a controversial issue of this sort, to be using the privilege of the Army publicity services to advance a particular political view.
I realise that there are those on both sides of the Committee who believe that German troops ought to train in Wales. I do not share that view, but whether we

share it or not, hon. Members on both sides will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has embarked on a very dangerous policy, for the issue is not whether we approve or do not approve of the training of German troops in Wales, but whether we approve or do not approve of the use of the publicity services of the Army to defend Government policy on issues of this kind.
I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State will not underestimate the strength of feeling in the Principality on this matter. The Welsh are a people who believe in hard hitting when there is controversy. We do not mind taking blows as well as giving them, but we like to know whom we are to hit, and we are not accustomed to going for the Army authorities. We debate these issues in this Committee, but, if the right hon. Gentleman pursues this use of the Army publicity services there will be speeches in Wales by Welsh Members criticising individual members of the Armed Forces who make statements on controversial issues. This is surely the last thing that either side of the Committee would want to see.
The debate has been useful in giving an opportunity to the Government to realise that a major blunder was committed on this occasion.

Mr. Michael Coulson: I listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), both of whom objected to the policy of German troops serving in Wales—a policy which the hon. Member for Pontypool said was rejected by the annual conference of the Labour Party. Of course, it was still approved by the Parliamentary Labour Party, as I understand it—

Mr. S. Silverman: No.

Mr. Coulson: —or by the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We can discuss the publicity matter, but we cannot go into question of policy of one party or another.

Mr. Silverman: I only wished to correct a mis-statement of fact, which I think the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) might


like to have corrected. In fact, the official Labour Party abstained on that occasion; it did not support it.

Mr. Coulson: If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is correct, then I am wrong and I apologise, but it is always difficult to know which is the official Labour Party policy.
The hon. Member for Pontypool must excuse us if, on occasions, we are apt to laugh or smile. We are not considering this a humorous subject, as he seems to indicate, but the hon. Gentleman underrates his own powers of oratory if he thinks that there was not at times touches of humour in what he himself was saying. Perhaps he will excuse us for that.
Publicity by the Army publicity services at the time when German troops came to Castlemartin last year was not political interference by the Army publicity services at all. It is well-known to all who have investigated the problem that our troops in Germany in B.A.O.R. would have been put to considerable difficulty in their training routine and in the area available to them for training if these German troops had not been allowed to come to this country.
The hon. Member for Pontypool knows as well as I do that the training facilities for the Army in Germany are very restricted, and that there are also political reasons on the other side, but not of the sort he referred to.
Sennelager, which was refered to by one hon. Gentleman, is leased to the British Government, or to the British Government and one or two other Governments, to train troops there, and, in fact, if German troops had been in Sennelager in large numbers we would have been forced out, along with a number of the forces of our N.A.T.O. allies. That would have meant political pressures from the West German Government to bring the lease to an end, and we would have been in considerable difficulty.
In fact, by allowing German troops to come here we were protecting the interests of our own Army, particularly B.A.O.R., by allowing them to train there—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting rather wide. We cannot talk about the merits of German troops coming here. We can only refer to the publicity in connection with it.

Mr. Coulson: I accept your Ruling, Sir Robert. All I wish to say is that this matter of the use of the Army publicity services was not interference in political matters at all, but was, in fact, protecting the interests of the Army, which is one of the purposes of the publicity services.

Mr. Abse: Am I to understand that because he considers it politically expedient for the Army, or opportune because it was Government policy, the hon. Gentleman therefore sanctions the use of public funds by the Army publicity services to put across Government policy? Is that what the hon. Member is suggesting? If not, I am sure that I and many others have totally misunderstood his speech. This is a very dangerous doctrine.

Mr. Coulson: I was not suggesting that, and if the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, I do not think that he would have thought that I was suggesting that it was politically opportune for the Government to take a particular attitude. T was saying that political pressures might have been brought by the West German Government to force us out of Sennelager, unless we had provided adequate facilities for German forces in this country.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Foot: The Committee owes a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for raising this matter, in what I thought was the unanswerable case which he made. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson), who has just intervened, has only further proved the case put by my hon. Friend, because he has suggested—though he did not go as far as this—that the reason why the Government allowed the Army publicity services to engage in the kind of activities in which they did engage was because it was politically expedient because of what was to happen in Germany. If that is the defence of the Government's policy, it seems to make


the position even worse, maybe, than it was originally.
Great feeling has been stirred up on this question. I was not able to be there myself, although I would have liked to have been, as I was at another demonstration elsewhere. If I had not been at another demonstration, I should have joined many of my friends from Ebbw Vale. In fact, many of my friends from Ebbw Vale went there, and did their best, despite difficulties caused by others, to prevent a very ugly scene when various missiles were being thrown, and it was one of my friends who said, "Do not be provoked; wait until you see the whites of their eggs." This shows the great restraint that we exercised in such a demonstration.
Very serious feelings were stirred up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, and one of the reasons why it is so regrettable that the Army publicity services should have been used in this way is because of the campaign which has been provoked, in my view, in the most shocking manner, against those who were using their perfectly democratic rights to protest against a policy which they thought was wrong for the country as a whole and for Wales—the decision to bring German troops there at all.
We have had a campaign run by the usual agencies, and, I am sorry to say, backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), suggesting that everybody who demonstrated against the Panzers coming to Wales were Communists and that they were being paid for by Communists. Many of those I know who went there never have been Communists. They paid their own fares to Pembroke, and they wanted to send the bills to the hon. Member for Pembroke and invite him to pay them for having said that they were being paid by Communists. Of course, they were not.
There was widespread feeling, and this is the main reason why the Government permitted the Army publicity services to get into this difficulty at all. Perhaps the Government did not realise how deep was the feeling. Perhaps if the Opposition Front Bench had voted against German troops ever coming to

this country at all, as the Labour Party conference subsequently voted and declared that to be the official policy of the Labour Party, the Government would have had a better warning, but, even so, they could have discovered the fact that all the official Labour organisations in South Wales had opposed the idea of German troops going there—the Regional Council of the Labour Party, the National Union of Mineworkers and most of the other Labour organisations in Wales, which had opposed it, not on the grounds of race or anti-German feeling, but on the grounds given by my hon. Friends and others in this House when it was debated.
It was certainly not run on racial grounds; indeed, many of those conducting the campaign were among those—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to describe the campaign against bringing German troops over here?

Mr. Foot: I was trying to make the point, which I could not make in one sentence—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in describing the campaign against bringing German troops to this country, as he was doing, by every Labour organisation and disaffected element in South Wales?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman, who, so far, I think has been trying to relate his arguments to the use of the Army publicity services. If he goes too far, I shall pull him up.

Mr. Foot: Thank you for your Ruling, Sir Robert.
It was precisely because I was trying to indicate—and this is possibly the most charitable explanation of why the Government got into difficulties—why they allowed the Army publicity services to do what they did. Perhaps they did not understand properly the strength of the division of feeling about it in Wales and elsewhere and did not realise what they were doing. Maybe the Government were misled by the absurd and quite false charges made in some of the newspapers in Wales and elsewhere that this was a Communist stunt; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke


lent his support to that kind of charge possibly the Government were further misled.
They should not have been misled. They should have studied the matter and realised that they were using the publicity services in what was an extremely hot political issue, and by so doing caused greater difficulty. One hon. Gentleman opposite, who tried to defend what had happened, said that the publicity services were being used to smooth relations for the German soldiers who came here and to make things easier for them.
If that was so, I can see the justification for it, because all those who were engaged in the campaign protesting against Panzer troops coming here were not saying that they wanted to inflict any personal humiliation or injury on individual German soldiers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), who said that that was not part of the campaign. That was part of the misrepresentation of the campaign. If the idea was to smooth relations, there was no need for photographers to do it. There was no need for television cameras. There was no need for advice to be given to the German troops on how they should comport themselves in front of the television cameras. There was no need for all that if the intention was to smooth relations and provide welfare facilities. It was something different from that. All that happened was exploited in a manner which I think the majority of people in Wales regarded as utterly disgraceful.
We are not debating the main issue tonight, but, unfortunately, German troops will again come to Wales. I hope that on the next occasion the Labour Party Front Bench will state its official policy on the (matter. When the next lot of troops come, will the Minister make sure that there is no recurrence of the events which occurred on this occasion in the use of the publicity organisation? Will he give us an assurance that if we have the French paratroops here the scenes we saw in Wales will mot be repeated, with the publicity services being used to provide television programmes and photographers to boost the French paratroops? If the Government want to use their publicity services for welfare purposes, let them

do so, but they must not use them for propaganda on an issue which has big and important political complications.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Would the hon. Gentleman agree with what I said earlier, that whether they are French paratroops, German troops, or any other troops visiting this country, the public are interested in them? The public like them to have publicity, and like the various exercises to be publicised, and this, in the long term, is in the interests of the Services throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman went rather wide in his speech, but would not he also agree that by having the Germans here we have done our troops a good service by allowing them the use of ranges in Germany?

Mr. Foot: I will not go into the hon. Member's second point, because I would be out of order if I did so.
On the first issue, about the public, we are the representatives of the public. That is why we are here. It may be a novel idea to the hon. Gentleman, but that is so. We are the representatives of the public. We are having this debate today because my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies are saying, "This is what we interpret public feeling to have been", and all the evidence that we have had proves it. As I said, every Labour organisation in the Principality has gone on record in this respect, and they represent the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what the public in Wales think, we have been telling him.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I want to add one or two words to what has been said, not because I consider that the case has not been adequately stated, or that it needs any elaboration of any kind. I take leave to say, I hope without any kind of patronage, that the case has been most admirably and convincingly put, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) in congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and those who supported him, but especially my hon. Friend, for having raised this question and for the way in which he put it.
I intervene for two reasons only. First, because all those who have spoken on


this side of the controversy have been Welsh Members, and I want to make the point, which I am sure is well understood, that this is not a purely Welsh grievance. The political neutrality of the Army is essential. It is fundamental to our whole constitution. If we once get the Armed Services, or the police force, or any other body which is under Government control and paid for by public funds intervening in matters of political controversy, then we shall have a situation which is fraught with danger not merely to one side of a political opinion, but to every side of every political opinion that can ever arise in our affairs.
It is, therefore, a matter of fundamental importance not merely that the Army should not be used on one side or other of a question in which there are deep and passionate political differences of opinion, but that it should not even seem as though it were being so used. I am sure that the Committee accepts this as a principle which we can all support, whatever our political views may be.
My second point is that I happened to take an active part in the House of Commons when the question that we cannot discuss now was decided by the House, that is, whether or not this adventure should be accepted. All that I want to say about it—certainly nothing about the merits—is that no question of any kind of racial antagonism or anything of that sort ever existed. We all realise that the young German boys who came to South Wales, and the others who may come at some other time, have no kind of responsibility for all the things that rouse the emotions that lie behind this question. Many of them—I suppose most of them—were not even born when Hitler came to power, and I suppose that some of them were not born even when the war came to an end. No one thinks of causing them any personal embarrassment.
I am not attacking it, defending it, or doing anything about it except stating it. What is involved is a political question on which there are wide differences of opinion, and the point that is being made today is that that being so, what the Army might do in a welfare direction to make things easier, to smooth the path of people who may be reluctant and

unwilling guests on our territory, is well done and nobody will object to it. But if it is done in such a way as to encourage people to think that the Government are using the Armed Services and public moneys to take one side as against another on a matter where there are passionate differences of opinion, this ought to be exposed to the Committee, and the Government ought to take particular pains to make absolutely, abundantly, and overwhelmingly clear that they had no such intention, and give a clear undertaking that it will not happen again.

Mr. Ede: I was opposed to German troops being brought here to be trained. I am not going to enter into any controversy that there may be about it, but the country was divided on the issue. In those circumstances the use by the Government of the Army publicity services to defend the line they took becomes a matter of great delicacy, because, after all, the people who oppose it pay taxes on the same basis as those who support it. The Government have no right to use so delicate an instrument as publicity for the Armed Forces to support their point of view in a domestic political controversy.
The basis of our democracy is that the civilian and not the soldier is responsible for national policy. Once the soldier, the sailor or the airman—or, for that matter, the policeman—appears, as a man in his profession, to be supporting the political action of the Government in connection with a matter of political controversy, it will not be very long before we find that the whole basis of the liberty that has been secured to us by the historic attitude towards our Constitution has been frustrated.
I did not have the advantage of hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), although I was told by a subsequent speaker that it was eloquent. I regret that I was not here to hear it, because whenever I can I always go to hear eloquence. I am not going to get further involved in the controversy than to say that this is a matter of very great importance for our constitutional liberties; it is a supreme test whether or not a Government are really democratic. If the Government are democratic, they stand up for themselves. We know that


they get considerably knocked about in these days, but there is not yet any need to call in the Armed Forces to put over their case for doing stupid things.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Morris: Time is getting on, and although there are many points that I would have liked to raise, I do not intend to go into any detail on them because we have other Estimates to deal with. Complaint has been made by some of my hon. Friends about the rôle of the War Office publicity men in South Wales. Indeed, very serious charges have been levelled. I do not want to go further into the issue, but in view of the very deep feelings which are held by several of my hon. Friends—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who first raised the question—I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer the various points that have been made.
I note that under the previous Vote there is an increase in the number of Army information officers from two to fourteen. There may be a causal connection between that Vote and this one. In view of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), speaking with the authority of a former Home Secretary, that this is an issue of great delicacy, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us about the rôle performed by the publicity men of the War Office in South Wales in those days in the autumn just prior to the demonstration.

Mr. Ramsden: It might suit the convenience of the Committee if I dealt, first, with a few points raised by my hon. Friends and then said a word about the activities of our public relations officers in connection with the visit of the German forces to Wales, which subject has formed the substance of our discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked about National Health Service expenditure. I can tell him that the expenditure incurred on treatment in civil hospitals is small, and concerns only a few cases where special treatment is required. He also asked about the relationship of the staff at Sandhurst to the number of cadets under instruction. I can assure him that the figure of 1,029 includes staff who look after the estate and also the

married quarters. As my hon. Friend will know, both are considerable. The number of instructional staff is much smaller than the number of students, as would be expected.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) spoke with great feeling. I recognise the deep sincerity which animated all those hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies and, indeed, English constituencies, who have addressed themselves to the question of the publicity given in connection with the visit of German soldiers to Castlemartin. I respect the feelings expressed by them, and I was glad when the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) went out of his way to affirm—with the support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—that none of these feelings have any connection with, or owe their origin to, any animosity towards the German soldiers involved. I was glad when that point was made.
These soldiers are our allies in N.A.T.O. When we give them facilities in pursuance of our obligations as a N.A.T.O. ally and they come to this country to use our training areas, the Government have a responsibility for doing all they can to see that their position, when training here, is properly understood, is not misrepresented, and does not give rise to incidents.
When there is a danger of misunderstanding, and of the strength of feeling leading to incidents which we would all recognise as undesirable, it is the more necessary that we should do something—as we sought to do in this case—to put the visit of such troops in proper perspective, and to make known to the public what it is all about. These German troops were using our training areas, owned and held by the War Office. To a certain extent they were under our administration. We were responsible for seeing that the public were not misled about the sort of people they were, and why they were there.
Complaints have been made about the way in which our public relations officers carried out their job. Their job is to see that the Press get all the help it wants in connection with its presentation of news to the public and to make available, as far as possible, the material which the Press wants. The visit of the German forces was sponsored by the


War Office, and it was quite proper that our public relations officers should help the Press to obtain the material which it obviously needed. This is quite common practice in many aspects of the work of Government Departments today, and it was the clear duty of our officers employed in that connection to help to give the Press these facilities.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Member include in that proposition the suggestion that it was proper for the War Office to spend public money on defending the decision to bring the soldiers here for training? We quite understand that the public relations officers were perfectly justified in their relationship with the Press, but this was a matter in respect of which one side said that there was a wrong political decision, and the other said that there was a right political decision. That is the very thing that is being complained about. I am sorry if the Minister does not appreciate that. It looks as if he has not begun to understand the objection to what was done.

Mr. Ramsden: It is difficult to understand where the one exercise—which I think is justified, and which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would accept—ends, and the other begins. I understand the distinction. I think that we all understand what was meant by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he said that this was a delicate matter, so that in the execution it is possible for the distinction to become blurred. I think that the Committee will accept that.
I was proposing to conclude by saying two things, the first in reply to the right hon. Member for South Shields. I think that his argument—I agree that this is a delicate matter—that the Army must not become involved in matters of political controversy can lead one to very far-reaching conclusions which I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself would accept. It could lead to the conclusion that the Army could not become involved in the prosecution of a political policy to the point of war, which is absurd.
I do not think that is an exaggeration. One must be careful how far one follows

that argument. It could lead to the conclusion that in no sense should public relations officers of any Government Department be allowed to explain anything or any situation to the Press. I mention these things to bring the Committee along with me in realising the real difficulty which here faced us.
I realise the point at issue and the deep feelings in Wales. I hope that if the circumstances arise again, all concerned—I include those who, on some occasions, allowed the strength of their feelings to get the better of them, and, therefore, increased the scope of the job which there was for the public relations people to do—will have learned from what happened, and that we shall have no recurrence either of the events which the public relations personnel had to counter, or of any other trouble of which there has been complaint in the Committee today.

Mr. S. O. Davies: As one who, so far, has lived all his life in South Wales, I am most disappointed with the reply of the Under-Secretary. Obviously—I say this with all respect—the hon. Gentleman has not come within a thousand miles of appreciating the shock which was felt in South Wales when this propaganda for the Armed Forces occurred before the German troops arrived in our dear country.
I headed a deputation from South Wales which attended the War Office before the German troops arrived. The deputation represented at least a quarter of a million organised workers in South Wales. We drew attention to the miserable, wretched attempts being made to create, by propaganda from the War Office, the necessary congenial atmosphere in which these youngsters could be received.
Let me repeat what my hon. Friends have said already. We have nothing against the German people as a people. In fact, within a short distance of where these Panzer lads were brought we have a considerable number of Germans engaged as miners, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). So let us disabuse our minds of that idea. I speak as one who has vivid memories of two world wars. I have no inkling of who was responsible for them, but that is not


a question which we may discuss on this occasion.
Can the War Office appreciate that we object profoundly to the fact that the resources of the State, backed by the Government, should be used for nothing more than sheer, misleading propaganda? It may interest the War Office to know that this propaganda did far more harm than good. We object to that, and if what we have heard is the answer of the War Office and the Government, I am sorry that I shall have to counter it by saying that if any visitation of the same kind is conducted in the manner in which the last one was, the War Office will realise that it has been playing the fool and that the people of Wales resent it. I hope that from what has been said in this debate the War Office will learn how foolish it has been.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I think that the Under-Secretary has left the matter in a rather unsatisfactory state. He referred several times to the deep feeling which he said he understood there was in Wales. But I think that the most important part of his remarks revealed that he has misunderstood the grave constitutional problem which is involved. I should like to discuss this problem removed from the particular instance which has given rise to this short debate and to direct the attention of the Committee to other possible circumstances where a similar situation might arise which would have nothing to do with the visit of German troops.
Consider the proposed visit by a force of French paratroopers. It is beginning to give rise to serious arguments as to the political desirability of such a visit taking place at the present time, because all political discussion is related to place and time. I admire the people of France as much as anyone in the Committee and many of my friends take the same view about France and the French people. But they have expressed serious doubt about the wisdom of the forthcoming visit. If the Army were to use public relations officers, as was hinted by the Under-Secretary, for the same purpose as in the past—to put this visit in the best possible light in the eyes of the public—they would be instructing

Army officers to interfere directly in a political disagreement which existed at the time. That, constitutionally, would be completely illegitimate, and I submit that it is not in the best interests of our Armed Forces.
I agree with the Under-Secretary about the dividing line being one which roust be investigated carefully in each case. Nobody could dissent from what is a commonsense view. But I submit that equally it is the duty of the Minister to decide where is the dividing lime. This is a political matter of the greatest delicacy and no one can deputise for the Minister. What disturbed me about the reply of the Under-Secretary was that he seemed to show little understanding of the essential constitutional provision that the policy of the Government which is implemented through the Army must be defended in the House of Commons by the Minister, and must not and cannot be defended by public relations officers in the service of the Army. It is the hon. Gentleman's job to convince those who disagree with the policy at the time that the Government's policy is correct.
We have been told that the number of these officers will be increased, and I welcome that. I am in favour of everything that can be done to make our forces appear in the proper light in the eyes of the nation. But it would be doing a disservice to that purpose, and make it far more difficult for many of us to justify the increased expenditure of public money in this respect, if there were the slightest doubt that some of that money would be spent in justifying the domestic political or foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The hon. Gentleman must seriously address himself to that point. It is not enough for him to say that the dividing lime is a difficult one. The only solution is for him and the Department, where there is the slightest danger of doubt that Army officers may be interfering in a political argument and trying to make propaganda for the political view of the Government of the day, to instruct them to desist, and to order them to confine themselves only to the essential task of Army public relations officers, which is to encourage a good appearance of our Services in the public eye. He must see to it that controversial political matters


relating to home or foreign policy are not put on their shoulders.
The Under-Secretary and his Department should not underestimate the significance of this matter. In my constituency, and in many neighbouring constituencies, there is always a very real feeling that the Armed Forces must not only be, but must be seen to be, completely and utterly neutral politically. People in my part of the country are always keen to support the recruiting campaigns, and great harm would be done to the Department's aims if those people had any doubt about that principle of the neutrality of the Armed Forces in political matters.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being able to be present at one stage of this debate, but I understand that he replied to my point about Sandhurst. I would ask him to give the assurance I sought about compensation for losses, damage, etc. under Subhead J; and to reject the theory put forward by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) in so far as it applies to our own forces. If that theory were to be carried to its logical conclusion, one could say that political controversy has arisen already over conscription, and other matters. The job of the Army publicity services job is to put forward the Army in the best possible light—

Mr. Mendelson: I said so. I was very careful to say that, because I want to make it quite clear that I fully support the work of the information officers in making a success of our recruiting campaign. What I had in mind were matters of international policy and political controversy.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Then the hon. Member's enthusiasm ran away with him.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Minister rather overstated his case when he argued that this action was necessary in order to keep the Press informed. I can quite understand that the publicity section was entitled to give the Press some facts about the arrival of the German troops, the time of their arrival, and their numbers, but what my hon. Friends from South Wales objected to was the

propaganda slant that was used, apparently with the assistance of the publicity department.
Can one believe that our Press needs all this help from the publicity department of the War Office? This was a human story in which Fleet Street, the B.B.C., the I.T.V. and, so I understand, the German Press agencies, too, were interested. Does the Minister suggest that the people who earn their living by writing stories of that kind needed the assistance of the War Office? I submit that this is a case where the War Office publicity department has been a little too zealous, and I hope that now that this has been impressed on the Minister, the result will be that the publicity department will not take over functions that properly belong to the Press, the B.B.C. and I.T.V.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary could not go a little further to meet me. I am extremely suspicious of all public relations officers, whether they support a Government, a local authority, or some commercial firm. They seem to be able to dress up the naked truth so attractively that some limit should be put on their activities. The proper place for dealing with disputes of the kind that have been referred to is the Treasury Bench.
The Committee should remember what happened this afternoon. The Prime Minister said, "I want to make a statement, Sir," and then told us that the Home Secretary, in addition to being responsible for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, is to devote his energies to settling quarrels between two Cabinet Ministers whose interests in an acute matter might be slightly different—

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has tremendous Parliamentary experience, and I suggest he is going a little wide.

Mr. Ede: I am speaking in illustration of what can be done, Dr. King. The Secretary of State for War could have said at the Dispatch Box, "Sir, I should like to make a statement." He would have had just the same opportunity for amazing the House as had the Prime Minister this afternoon.
It is not the duty of public relations officers to defend the Government in


matters of political controversy. It may be their duty to explain a policy that has been agreed and is no longer a matter of political controversy—although, even there, they should step with very great care. I regret that we did not get a recognition tonight that the key to our democratic freedom is that members of the Government have to defend themselves in matters where acute political controversy has arisen. Such controversy arose in this case, and I hope that the trouble that resulted will be a sufficient warning to Governments not to try to repeat such action too often.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,930,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Orders of the Day — Vote 10. Non-effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £34,100,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In Subhead A there is a reference to terminal grants and gratuities to officers. Is my hon. Friend still paying what was known as the gratuity to the "golden bowler" officers? I imagine that most of the officers referred to have left the forces and that this payment no longer applies.
In Subhead B there is a reference to the commutation of retired pay of officers. As my hon. Friend knows. I hold very strong views about this. I do not like his right hon. Friend being the judge in his own case, which is what happens. If a retired officer puts in an application to commute his pension or part of his pension for some commercial purposes, the case goes before my right hon. Friend, who decides it on the advice given by his Department. It might be that the decision is to the detriment of the retired officer or other rank, particularly the retired officer. This has happened not once, but twice, in my constituency; the officer concerned was refused permission to commute his pension. I do not pretend to be a business

expert, but I could see no reason why those applications were turned down.
The Secretary of State for War told me at the time that one of the officers wanted to invest in what was a nonviable project. How can he possibly judge that? How does he know the conditions in Cornwall or in Scotland or in Wales, for example? I hope that my hon. Friend will advise the Secretary of State to set up an independent board or at least to have an independent chairman, preferably an industrialist with wide experience, to give him commercial business advice whether a project in which a retired officer is interested for commutation purposes is a worthwhile project. The position as it stands is very unsatisfactory. The amount involved is £1,900,000, which is a vast sum. I do not rely on my right hon. Friend's judgment being always 100 per cent. right. Even if he is 1 per cent. wrong, then 1 per cent. of the retired officers are being very hardly treated, because this decision could make all the difference in the world.
Subhead D and Subhead G deal with rewards, and I wish to refer, in particular, to holders of the Victoria Cross. I am not certain how many Victoria Cross awards were made to Gurkha troops during the last war and previously, but I think that there were about thirty-six. Is the £100 a year, which is paid to the holders of the Victoria Cross, paid to the retired Gurkha officers or troops who are living in Nepal? If so, how is it paid? How is it paid to those living in outlying villages? Do they receive the full benefit of it?
Does Subhead D, with its reference to rewards to officers, include those whom in the last war we knew as Gurkha officers, equivalent to Viceroy-commissioned officers? Or do they come under Subhead G? It probably will not make much difference, but I should like an assurance on that point.
I wish to put to my right hon. Friend a question about pensions, particularly the pensions of retired officers and officers' widows and families. My hon. Friend realises that I feel extremely strongly about the present position of some retired officers and of some officers' widows. Some of these officers served for a long time. Many of these widows are living in my constituency on


a pittance. These officers' widows, particularly widows of officers who died before 1958, are in a parlous condition. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay the greatest attention to the pleas made by my hon. Friends and myself and, indeed, by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee on this point. It is not good enough for him to say, "This is a non-contributory pension. In the old days there was not one at all. The officer did not expect to get a pension; he was just given a buckshee payment."
Some of these women—majors', colonels' and brigadiers' wives as well as the wives of other ranks—whose husbands had retired and then died before 1958, are living in dire penury in many places in this country; unfortunately, I have some in my division.
I am also concerned about the financial position of the retired officers, particularly those retired officers on the earlier rates of pay which were cut in 1929 and not fully restored in 1932. These officers are a long way behind in comparison with the officers who retired between 1958 and 1962. I know that they are now old and that there are few of them, and that may be why my hon. Friend does not worry about them any more. I certainly hope that he will do his utmost to persuade the Chancellor to look very quickly at this matter and that he himself will try to get through a Supplementary Estimate coming under Vote 10 to pay higher pensions to these people.
I must pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who made this point earlier in the debate on the Army Estimates, although I shall not be as outspoken as he was. I agree in spirit with what he said, that these widows and officers who retired away back in the 1920s and 1930s are not getting a fair deal from the Government. I trust that this position will be put right as a matter of urgency, otherwise I shall find it very difficult to know what to do about it.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has just said about pensions. I should like to reinforce a point that I made the other day. Apart from the equity of it, I do not

think that hon. Members on either side would dispute the fact that these people are entitled to decent pensions, after having served perhaps 30 or 40 years. They should have their pension upgraded so that they can have a reasonable standard of living.
A much more important point is that this is one of the worst recruiting factors we can have. No man will go into the Army if be thinks that his widow in 30 or 40 years' time is likely to suffer conditions that these widows are suffering today. My hon. Friend would do very well to press the Chancellor on this matter if he really wants to make the Army an attractive career. I would warm him, moreover, that the Army has now to Compete with commercial undertakings offering very much better pensions on retirement than those of the Army. He must have some sort of regard for these people who have served the country well and who deserve a decent standard of life.

Mr. Ramsden: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who asked about the so-called "golden bowler" scheme, I can tell him that payments are still being made under this scheme. I shall have to write to him about the details.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of our practice when we receive applications from other ranks or from officers in receipt of other rank pensions for the commutation of those pensions, and he felt that, by holding the discretion in his own hands, my right hon. Friend was too much a judge in his owe cause. This matter has been raised many times with us, but after reconsideration we are convinced that, in the interests of all concerned, our practice is the best that can be devised. Those charged with the task of scrutinising the applications are widely experienced in this task, because of the very nature of their job. They have to look at a great number of such applications. We must bear in mind our responsibility to the pensioner concerned, who is to some extent putting himself at a hazard if he transfers his annual or monthly payment into a capital sum which he may lose. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I cannot hold out any great hope that this question, which has often been raised before, can be solved any differently.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend says that these applications are considered by experts, presumably in the War Office. Does he mean experts who come in from the business world and have experience in business and commerce, or are they excellent, first-class people in the Civil Service?

Mr. Ramsden: They are first-class men who have the common sense which is necessary for an assessment of the risks we have to assess. I do not claim to be a great expert, but I review numbers of these cases which are raised with me by hon. Members. I am satisfied that very fair consideration is given and that the practice is a good one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North asked about the position of Gurkhas holding the V.C. One officer and one other rank who hold the V.C. are serving with the British Brigade of Gurkhas in Nepal and receive an annuity of £100 from the War Office. Other Gurkha holders of the Victoria Cross who have left the British Army or transferred to the Indian Army still receive a pension from Indian funds.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend saying that Gurkhas who have received the V.C. and who have retired and returned to Nepal are not paid by Her Majesty's Government and do not receive the £100, but receive a paltry sum from the Indian Government, which my hon. Friend knows as well as I do is a mere pittance? Is that what my hon. Friend is saying?

Mr. Ramsden: I shall have to go further into the details. This is the advice I have received. It may be that if the payment is transferred in this way it gets more expeditiously to the recipient. I will write to my hon. Friend about the details.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the amount they finally receive in Nepal is the equivalent of what they would receive if it had been paid direct by the British Government?

Mr. Ramsden: I take my hon. Friend's point. I will certainly look into it.
On the question of officers' retired pay, I cannot go as far as my hon. Friends would like me to go. My hon. Friends know that pensions increases have been introduced from time to time to relieve

hardship caused to existing pensioners by severe falls in money values. The last such Measure had effect from 1st August, 1959. Because these are special Measures to relieve hardship, pensions increases are related to those who need them most—incapacitated pensioners, child pensioners, widows over 40, other widows with dependants, and pensioners reaching the age of 60. This means that Army pensioners, like other public service pensioners, do not qualify for pensions increases before the age of 60, unless they were invalided out or are permanently unfit for full-time employment.
It has been felt by the Government that the taxpayer should not have to find the money for helping pensioners who may reasonably be expected, and be still able, to help themselves. I cannot give an undertaking to go further than this. The answer—my hon. Friends know that this is the policy of the Government—is to ensure that we do not get inflation and do not get a position where the value of pensions is eroded. It would be wrong if we were to treat Service pensioners in isolation. They are in the same position as all public service pensioners and, indeed, as the many others who live on fixed incomes.
8.45 p.m.
As I said in reply to similar points which were raised in the Estimates debate the other night, we are keeping this matter under constant review, but I am afraid I cannot go any further in any statement of the Government's intention or practice at the moment.

Mr. Paget: I can never understand why always it is the poorest and weakest who can rescue the Government from inflation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the position of the widows whose case has been submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself. I hope that he will give an assurance that he will look once again at the position of the widows of officers and other ranks who retired prior to 1958. I can assure him, from the depths of my heart, that many of them are in a terrible plight.

Mr. Ede: I wish that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench would realise occasionally that because a thing has been done many times there is no reason why—in the changed circumstances of today, about which they are frequently so eloquent—traditional policy should not be changed.
Of course, if the Government do something for these people they must do it for someone else. I can think of other people for whom it should be done. If I pleaded for them I should be told that the Government must also deal with the people for whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) pleaded and, if that were done, the most terrible disaster would overtake the country, galloping inflation would be started, the additional pensions would lead these people into an extravagant way of life and, before we knew where we were, our export-import balance would be further disturbed and final disaster would overtake us and all the things for which we stand.
I just do not believe it. It is astonishing the way in which members of the Government can look at themselves in the mirror and say, "This is a picture which should be hung at the academy as an example of genius and sympathy"—which can never express itself in actual practice. It is deplorable that we should have received the sort of answer to which we were just subjected.
As for the Gurkhas and the V.C., all I can say is that I hope that the service rendered to this country by the Gurkhas will never be thought less of than when they were still in the British Commonwealth. I recollect once hearing the Government upbraded because they had brought some Gurkha troops into Greece during the last war. I said at that time, "All I can say as an old soldier is that in a tight corner I would sooner be there with a Gurkha than with a Greek."

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £34,100,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Orders of the Day — Army Supplementary Estimate, 1961–62

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid



£
£


Vote




1. Pay, etc., of the Army
4,000,000
320,000


2. Reserve Forces, Territorial and Cadet Forces
Cr. 730,000
*—370,000


3. War Office
250,000
—


4. Civilians
6,700,000
—


5. Movements
1,820,000
330,000


6. Supplies, etc.
2,900,000
*—150,000


7. Stores
Cr.4,160,000
2,110,000


8. Works, Buildings and Lands
Cr. 6,280,000
*—470,000


SO. Non-Effective Services
500,000
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*—527,000


Total, Army (Supplementary), 1961–62…£
5,000,000
1,243,000


* Deficit.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In recent years, the Government have got into the habit of issuing many of these Supplementary Estimates. When the discussions of the Army Estimates are over, the House is in such a state of exhaustion that it does not have the opportunity of examining the Supplementary Estimates with the care that they deserve.
Five million pounds is a quite substantial sum and the fact that this Supplementary Estimate is issued, as it were, as a footnote, as a supplement, to the


other Estimates shows the weakness of this Committee system. I shall not enter into the argument for the extension of Committee administration, but this is an example of £5 million being rushed through at the tag end of a tiring week when the House does not have the opportunity to examine it with the care and meticulous attention that it deserves.
In a few weeks' time, the benches opposite will be crowded with hon. Members asking about the financial crisis and the heavy burden of Government expenditure. Today, however, is one of the opportunities to examine one of the Supplementary Estimates. When all the Supplementary Estimates from the different Departments are added up, they amount to a considerable sum.
I should like to examine the Army Supplementary Estimate in detail, but I turn to ask an important question on Vote 4, Subhead E, "Research and Experimental Establishments". We find that the original estimate of £6,035,000 has gone up to £6,435,000, an increase of £400,000 in one year. I should be much obliged if the Under-Secretary of State would tell us something about this mysterious and rather innocuous looking item. Six and a half million pounds is a substantial sum. Can the Under-Secretary break it down a little? Can he tell us, for example, whether it includes the research and experimental establishments at Porton, near Salisbury Plain? If so, what is the reason for the additional expenditure of £400,000?
I ask this question because when these establishments were under the Ministry of Supply, I was a member of a deputation of Members, from both sides, of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee which visited the Porton Microbiological Station, near Salisbury. The purpose of that experimental and research station was to carry out research into biological and microbiological war. We found it an extensive and expensive establishment, costing a considerable amount of money. We were told there that it dealt with all the possibilities of manufacturing the different kinds of viruses and toxins which might be used in the event of biological warfare in the future.
I remember being alarmed at the time that there were 160 scientists employed in this branch of research and thinking that they would be far better employed

doing something which might be of greater advantage to humanity. The Committee will recall that there was a considerable number of Questions following the investigations by that deputation, and that the Government's defence was that it was necessary to do research into biological warfare so that we could defend ourselves against possible biological attack by somebody else.
I do not want to go into a great deal of descriptive detail now, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say whether the Porton Establishment is included under this mysterious heading, "Research and Experimental Establishments". It used to be under the Ministry of Supply and it was transferred to the War Office. Does it come under this subhead, the Estimate for which has gone up by £400,000 during the year? If so, what is the explanation of the rise?

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) complains that we do not devote enough time to the examination of Supplementary Estimates. It was to make sure that the House, through at least one of its agencies, should devote more examination to Supplementary Estimates that the recent procedure by which they go before the Estimates Committee was introduced. On an earlier Vote I referred to some of the comments which had come from the Estimates Committee on this Supplementary Estimate.
The hon. Gentleman asks about an increase in the provision for civilians at research establishments. I cannot tell him in detail whether this is attributable to increases in pay or increases in numbers, but, in general, under Vote 4, the increased provision this year is attributable to increases in pay. I should be safe in telling the hon. Gentleman that that is the principal reason for the increase to which he has drawn attention.
It is worth saying in regard to this Supplementary Estimate that the original Estimate was for about £500 million. The Supplementary Estimate is for £5 million, representing a rise of 1 per cent. This is due largely to pay and price increases which came upon us since the original Estimate was prepared and which have necessitated the bringing forward of this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State does not really mean what he appears to say, that because it is only a 1 per cent. rise it is not to be frowned upon, and that a sum of £5 million can be disregarded as of no great importance. I am sure that he did not mean that. I believe that he is just as worried about these miscalculations and rises, over which we have no control, as I am, and I am sure that he will do his best to ensure that they are kept to the very minimum in the future. A sum of £5 million is equally disturbing whether it be a 1 per cent., ½per cent. or 10 per cent. rise.

Mr. Ramsden: With respect, my hon. Friend has misunderstood. I am not talking about the rise. Naturally, we are all as concerned as he is to see the rate of rise in Government expenditure moderated. I was referring to the degree of accuracy possible in estimating, which is different. A margin of error of 1 per cent., no matter what sum my hon. Friend likes to take, but particularly with a sum of about £500 million, is not, I believe, bad. However, we should try to improve our estimating.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Under-Secretary of State has not attempted to answer my question about an item for £6,435,000. Where are the establishments? Do they include the Porton Establishment? For what are we voting this £6 million?

The Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Hughes: Sir William, I have asked a definite question concerning an item of £6 million, which is a huge sum, yet the Minister sits there and does not attempt to give me an answer. Surely I am entitled to ask whether he can justify this £6 million. What is it for?

Mr. Ramsden: I told the hon. Gentleman what the increased provision was for. I cannot go into detail on these establishments with him tonight, for reasons which he very well understands.

Mr. Hughes: That does not satisfy me. I have asked: what are these establishments? I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to go into detail. Is the Porton Establishment included?

Mr. Ramsden: Porton is certainly included among them.

Mr. Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we are only discussing a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Hughes: Before you came back into the Chair, Sir William, I suggested that, in view of the increased demand that public expenditure should not be excessive, these Supplementary Estimates should be meticulously examined. I have had great difficulty in dragging an anwer out of the Minister about this item. However, I have dragged out of him at last the fact that the Porton Establishment is included. Can he say what other establishments are included?

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Royal Ordnance Factories

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1963.

Mr. James Griffiths: The Committee will note that, while the Army Estimates for the year show a net increase of £21,780,990, the Estimate in respect of the Royal Ordnance Factories shows a net decrease of £227,000. One would expect that, since the Army Estimates show an increase of this order, the Estimate for the Royal Ordnance Factories would also show an increase. I am endeavouring to discover why this is. Apart from the sum in respect of pay, this is the only Estimate which shows a decrease.
If I may declare my interest, there is a Royal Ordnance factory in my constituency at Pembrey. There are many workmen employed in that factory who are drawn from my constituency and from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), which is the neighbouring constituency. When we saw that the Estimate for the coming year is lower than last year's we at once concluded that this might be partly due to the fact that


we had recently been told that 500 workmen employed in the factory are to be made redundant between now and the end of May.
We have had the opportunity, for which we are grateful, of discussing this matter very fully with the Secretary of State and putting our views to him. He was not able to grant our request that notices already served or to be served on the workmen should be withdrawn and that they should be kept in employment. We were told quite courteously that the reason why they were redundant or were to be withdrawn between now and the middle of the summer was that the work was tapering off and coming to an end. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to look into the submissions and considerations which we put before him about the future.
I should like to say a few words not only about this Royal Ordnance factory but about other similar factories. They have rendered a great service to the nation in peace and war and I would claim that the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey has rendered signal service. I remember the First World War when the Ordnance factory was established there and thousands of men and women were employed. Their services were required by the nation but at the end of the war the factory was closed and demolished and the area was left to bear the burden of the fact that the services and the houses had been built to meet the requirements of the population which was largely employed in the factory and suddenly the whole place was closed down leaving behind tremendous problems of unemployment. When I first became a Member of Parliament, nearly 80 per cent. of the population there were unemployed. We protested at the time but it was to no avail.
When war again became imminent it was found that the site of the old Ordnance factory was a suitable one for a new Ordnance factory. It was suitable also for other kinds of industry. I used to put the point to the then Minister of Supply that when the Government brought a Royal Ordance factory, and particularly an explosives factory, to a site it made it difficult to get other industries to take over a neighbouring site. It so happens that this is one of the best industrial sites available in west Wales,

with a main railway and a main road each side of it and port facilities nearby. When the Government use a site of this kind for a Royal Ordnance factory they should accept responsibility for the consequence that if that factory is there industrialists ail ways think twice of building a factory next door to it.
In this case a neighbouring site was taken over about the same time, at the outbreak of the Second World War, by the Air Ministry to be used as a station for one of our allied air forces. It has been empty for some time but it is being reactivated in connection with R.A.F. operations. The area is known as "Kidwelly Flats". As the Under-Secretary knows, the name in itself denotes that the area is a phenomenon in the mountainous topography of Wales. It is the best site we have. As I have said, the War Office took over part of that splendid site and now the Royal Air Force is to reactivate the other part, a matter which has been the subject of controversy with the local authorities and which has been settled by the decision of independent people who conducted an inquiry.
We are, therefore, very disturbed to find that, in am area like ours, the Royal Ordnance factory, which has served the country so well and has such a splendid team, is to be closed. I have had long experience of industrial relations, and I can say that the industrial relations in this factory have been a model to every other factory in the country. There is no dispute about that. It has had a wonderful team, which has worked hard and effectively, giving splendid service to the nation.
Now, 500 men are to be turned out in an area which has for a long time been plagued by unemployment and is far from being out of the wood yet. We regret that. We are told that it cannot be helped and that the work of the factory is coming to an end. We understand that the Government must, from time to time, renew their policy, and that the future of the Royal Ordinance factories is being considered. But these factories are national property. We are voting public money for them. The Under-Secretary of State knows that if as is proposed, there are changes in defence, work at these factories may come to an end.
Have the Government considered, or will they consider, whether these factories, if and when they become unnecessary for purposes of armaments or explosives, cannot be regarded as valuable national property to be kept by the Government for civilian use? I speak as a layman, but I understand from my hon. Friends who are expert in these matters that it would be very easy to use the factory at Pembrey with its equipment, its staff and "know how", in order to produce goods for civilian purposes, and that it would not be a very big job, nor very expensive, to make other kinds of chemicals instead of explosives. I am told that with very little adaptation of equipment and with the skill of the men it could be used to produce fertilisers.
I had the privilege of being Colonial Secretary, and have visited Commonwealth countries and many others. The poorer countries of the world are crying out for fertilisers. Will the Under-Secretary of State ask the Government to bear in mind that if, at any time, the Royal Ordnance factories are not required for production for the Armed Forces, they have a responsibility to find, if they can, alternative work, including civilian production? I hope that they will not do again what was done before—turn men out, destroy the premises, leave the site derelict, and, what is far worse, leave a derelict community. That has happened before.
9.15 p.m.
I am putting the case frankly, because the men believe it. The Government are not the only people engaged here: there are other people. Therefore, I ask the questions that have been put to me by the men. I hope that this factory will not be prevented from making use of its equipment, and the "know-how" and experience of its men, just because if all this were put to civilian use, it would be competing with very powerful vested interests.
I do not want to mention any names, but the position was put very frankly to me, just as it was put many years ago. These are some of the points I want to raise with the Under-Secretary, and I know that my hon. Friends want to raise others. I am very sorry for these 500 men, who are being declared redundant. Many of them have rendered

very great service to the nation by working in Royal Ordnance factories with their skill and know-how. Many of them have been turned out at over 50 years of age. One of the problems that we have all over the country, but particularly in South Wales, is that when men are 50 or over and lose their jobs, it is very difficult to provide other work for them and to get other industries to take them on.
I hope that the War Office will realise that among these 500 men there will be many in this middle-aged group who will find it very difficult to find another job in another industry. After yeans of service to the nation, they deserve consideration from and protection by the Government, and I hope that care will be taken of them.
When the Government consider whether all the existing Royal Ordnance factories are to be kept or whether any can now be disposed of, I hope that consideration will be given to the social implications of where they economise. Where they stop factories and whom they make redundant. I hope that some consideration will be given to whether, in a given area where a factory is affected and men have to be withdrawn, it will be difficult or easy for those affected to find alternative employment.
I hope that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend will consider these questions. I hope they will copy what the Labour Government did after 1945. I hope that, sometimes, when the hon. Gentleman visits South Wales—I do not know whether he ever does—he will visit Bridgend. I hope that if and when the Ordnance factory is no longer required, it will be possible, by collaboration with the Board of Trade and other Government Departments, to transform part of it into an ordinary factory, rather than pull it down, as was done in some places at the end of the First World War.
I hope that all these things will be borne in mind. Millions of pounds of public money have been put into these factories, which are splendid works, structurally and in every other way. They can be used for civilian purposes. Perhaps this Government have an objection to public ownership, but at least they will not carry their objection so far as to deny that a factory and equipment which under public ownership can


manufacture and provide explosives, cannot, equally under public ownership, provide goods for civilian use. It could be done, and I hope that this will be borne in mind. I thought that it was my duty to my constituents to refer to these men, most of whom I know, and many of whom formerly worked in coal mines and did very good work there.
These are the communities which in the years gone by suffered from being used when the nation required them, and being discarded when the nation thought that they were no longer necessary. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to what has been said today when they reconsider the use of the Royal Ordnance factories, particularly the one at Pembrey.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the fact that in the 1961–62 Estimates provision was made for one graduate apprentice, and this year that provision does not appear to have been made? Indeed, no provision appears to have been made for apprentices. Has any provision been made for Commonwealth countries which have their own Armed Forces to send people here for training in the Royal Ordnance factories?
Secondly, I suppose that raw materials for the factories are included under the heading of "Manufactures, modifications and repairs", in Appendix I. If this is not the case, I cannot see where provision is made for supplying raw materials to enable the factories to produce me various things they do produce. Perhaps my horn. Friend can explain this point to the Committee.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said about Royal Ordnance factories in general, and about the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey in particular. They have given signal service for many years. Although, as my right hon. Friend said, the factory at Pembrey is in his constituency, many of my constituents are employed there.
This factory has been running down for a considerable time. My right hon. Friend referred to the great anxiety felt about the 500 redundancies in this factory, and the fact that the whole future

of the factory is in the balance, and, I might add, in a precarious balance. A few weeks ago we saw the Secretary of State for War about this. He informed us that the notices could not be withdrawn, and we realised from what he said then, and it is obvious, that this whole matter involves Government policy, and that in the end it will be a Cabinet decision.
We understand that, but for goodness' sake let us have a decision one way or the other. The Government have taken an unconscionable time to decide what to do, and the consequences have been very serious. We have been told that one firm has been deterred from establishing a factory in Pembrey because the Royal Ordnance factory is occupying part of the factory premises. In addition, this factory is near one of the best industrial sites in the whole of South Wales—Kidwelly Flats. It is on the site which was considered for the steel mill which was subsequently established in Llanwern, in Monmouthshire.
Let us have a decision one way or the other, and let us have it soon, so that these premises may be converted to civilian use and the whole area may be developed industrially. After all, the Government have a direct and definite responsibility from which they cannot escape—I do not suggest that they wish to do so—for these men who have served the country well for many years.
I therefore ask the Minister to be a little more explicit. If he cannot give us an undertaking one way or the other tonight, will he ask his right hon. Friend to expedite his decision and thereafter consult his colleagues in the Government, especially the President of the Board of Trade, to ensure that these men will not be told, "We do not want this factory any more. We are very grateful to these men who have rendered great service to the country, but there it is. We wash our hands of it"?
We want from the Government an undertaking that their responsibilities to these men will be fulfilled, and that if the factory is to be abandoned by the Government it will be taken over as soon as possible and made available for industrial use.

Mr. Ramsden: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked why we had no provision


for graduate apprentices under Royal Ordnance factory salaries this year, and why we had only one last year. As far as I know, the position is that the graduate apprentice is a rather rare kind of apprentice on a salary. As for our employment of ordinary industrial apprentices, I have asked about this when visiting Royal Ordnance factories and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing more than our share of training apprentices. I shall have to make special inquiries in order to answer my hon. Friend's point about Commonwealth apprentices.
My hon. Friend also asked me whether the raw materials used by the factories were included under the heading of manufactures, on page 9. I can assure him that they are.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) raised the question of Royal Ordnance factories in general, and the one at Pembrey in particular. The right hon. Gentleman asked me why, in a year where there was an increase in the Army Estimates, there was a decrease in the Estimates for Royal Ordnance factories. I can best explain the position by giving him the picture of our War Office expenditure over the last two years and the next two years.
At present, there is a peak in expenditure on the building aspect of our activities—works, married quarters, barracks, and so on—but in respect of the Royal Ordnance factories, which deal with equipment, the peak will not come for another year or two, although, as my right hon. Friend said, the upward turn is beginning. We are approaching the end of a rather slack period in the activity of Royal Ordnance factories. That is the explanation. We can look forward to a measure of improvement as the re-equipment programme gets under way and becomes the main aspect of our expenditure, replacing in this respect the building programme.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been suggested to him that the decline in the activity of the factories had a more sinister significance, and that they were not going to get a fair share of the work. I deny that. What

is known as the "preferred source" policy—that is, the policy declared previously by the Government by which Royal Ordnance factories receive Government equipment work, subject to delivery dates and the design rights of firms—still stands. The right hon. Gentleman can reassure anybody who may have cast doubts upon that, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so.
9.30 p.m.
Coming specifically to Pembrey, I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend over this matter and have discussed it with him since he met hon. Members. The position is difficult. There is a plentiful supply of T.N.T., which is what the factory produces. It is stuff which will keep, so that further production presents a difficulty. At present, the workers at Pembrey are employed in breaking down ammunition, work which is a hangover from the last war and part of the tidying-up process. That, of course, will eventually come to an end and I cannot visualise any improvement in the position. It is not, therefore, easy to define the future for this factory.
I will give an undertaking to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen and ask him to do what he can to hasten a decision in the matter. I can assure the right hon. Member for Llanelly that we shall consider with the greatest care the question of the future of employees who may be affected by any further run-down in Royal Ordnance factories. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall consider, if and when the time comes, possible alternative civilian uses for the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey, or any other factory which is similarly affected. We always examine the local employment prospects.
We have recently been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and with the Board of Trade. I cannot say anything further at the moment, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend what has been said during this debate and we will seek to clear the air as soon as possible in order to arrive at a position where we can give a decision, and show to those concerned


a little more clearly where the future lies.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March 1963.

Orders of the Day — War Office Purchasing (Repayment) Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I wish to put two points to my hon. Friend. I wish to draw attention to the astronomical sum paid out for munitions and I should like to know the proportion of arms, munitions and guns bought in this country and abroad. For clothing and textiles there is a figure of £14,600,000. In the Estimate the figure is only £7 million for clothing and presumably the other £7 million is for textiles. I should like my hon. Friend to explain how the figure for textiles is arrived at.

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact breakdown of purchases of guns, small arms, and equipment. Some of them are purchased from overseas when we find them particularly suitable. For example, the 105 mm. pack howitzer from Italy is the best weapon we have been able to find for its particular purpose. But I am advised that overseas purchases do not form a large proportion of the total. The answer, therefore, is that these are mainly purchases made at home—and, of course, my hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that there are also considerable sales overseas.
My hon. Friend also remarked on the sum of £14,600,000 for clothing and textiles, but he will no doubt remember that we are engaged in re-equiping the Army with Service dress, which explains the rather larger clothing element in the Vote as compared with the normal expenditure.

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £69,133,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could I be told, Sir William, whether my Amendment is in order?

The Chairman: If there were time, I might consider that, but we will see how we get on.

Commander Harry Pursey: I want to deal with what, for the men in the Navy, is the all-important matter of the pay of the lower deck. In February, 1960, the Government announced, in Command 945:
The Government agreed that Service pay and pensions should be reviewed regularly at intervals of not more than two years, and have carried out the first of these reviews.
There was then a 7s. increase for the ratings. Today, there should be another 5s., but 2s. 6d. has been refused. The Government, having now carried out the second of these reviews, frankly admit that there should be an increase, in round figures, of 5 per cent. in the pay of the other ranks in all three Services, but they refuse to honour their contract, arguing that there must be a pay pause because of their own failure to increase our exports.
My first question to the Civil Lord is: what is the connection between exports and the pay of the seamen in the Antarctic Survey Service, the soldiers in Kenya and the airmen in Singapore—to give only three examples? The answer is that there is no connection. That is a polite expression. If I were on the lower deck I should use a much more emphatic term. There is no question at all but that the Services should have been granted their full 5 per cent., which happens to coincide with a 5s. increase in pay, in the same way as the pay was increased, rightly, for the police and the firemen.
The explanation is that the Service men have no trade unions to fight for


them, and they look to the House of Commons to fight their battles—and battles they are—for a proper and good standard of living in their homes for themselves and especially for their wives and for their children, who are the important next generation. But Tory M.P.s have always opposed proper rates of pay for other ranks in the Services. In my young days as an able seaman the pay was Is. 8d. per day, and the rate remained at that figure for over sixty years, from the Crimean War of 1854 to the First World War of 1914.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Did the hon. and gallant Member fight in both those wars?

Commander Pursey: I am ready to take on any interjection, but I did not hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Mr. Doughty: I wondered whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman fought in both those wars.

Commander Pursey: I am the third generation of ex-Service men who served on the lower deck, and I am taking no nonsense from the other side of the Committee about that.

Mr. Doughty: I apologise.

Commander Pursey: My grandfather fought in the Crimean War of 1854 and was invalided out. My father served in the Navy and was invalided out. I am the one who, fortunately, was able to complete a full period of thirty years' service. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the details—because they can never be repeated—I can give them: orphanage boy, seaman boy at 6d. a day, ordinary seaman, able seaman, leading seaman, petty officer, warrant officer and then commissioned officer, with twenty years on the quarter deck, finishing in H.M.S. "Hood", the largest warship in the world and the fastest battle cruiser at that time. I am having no humbug from hon. Members opposite tonight.
The basic rate of naval ratings' pay was not increased until the middle of the First World War, and then only after trouble in the Grand Fleet. When the Liberal Government of 1912 considered

an increase in the basic rate, Tory Members of Parliament, probably looking forward to the Orpington result, argued in this House that if any more money were paid to naval ratings it would be spent on wine, women and song. The increase was a meagre 3d. a day, but only then for ratings over the age of 21.
I ask the Committee to imagine what my married able seamen mess-mates on Is. 8d. per day, and with no marriage allowance, were able to do about more wine, women and song, with the further princely sum of 3d. a day. It was Id. a day extra for each item—wine, women and song. [Laughter.] I want to make certain that this is on the record; it must be worth it if it is causing all that amusement on the Tory benches. It was 1d. a day extra for each—wine 1d., women 1d., and song 1d. Even at the lower rates in those days, that did not take them very far.
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of Defence has claimed that as the other ranks have no trade union, he will look after them. Golly, what a foster-father! That is just what he has not done. He has shirked his responsibility in this matter and completely let down the other ranks. The plain fact is that the Tory Party, as always, pays lip-service to the good work of the men of the three Services and then trades on their patriotism by refusing to pay the proper rate of pay for a strenuous job and adverse conditions under which they perform their duties.

Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Sir William. Is it in order for the hon. Member to waste the Committee's time with this nonsense, when we have other important matters to discuss in a very short time?

The Chairman: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to make his remarks along the lines that he is doing.

Commander Pursey: I should have been much further ahead but for the interruptions, Sir William.
There is no question but that these men are 100 per cent. entitled to the full 5 per cent. increase in their pay. But the Government say that they would pay only 2½ per cent. for a year. At first


sight, this appears to be only a loss of 2½ per cent. for twelve months, but with the biennial assessment an increase was due a year ago. What is to happen next year, and at the next biennial review in 1964? Are there to be more cuts? If so, I warn the Government that there will be serious trouble.
What does this reduction of 2½ per cent. in pay mean to the men in the Service in hard cash? I am taking the basic figures from Cmnd. 945, Service Pay and Pensions, 1960, page 20. The pay of an ordinary rating is only £5 5s. per week.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): We are debating these Estimates and the information is at the back of them if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to refer to it.

Commander Pursey: To reduce the amount of time that I am taking up I have ruled out from my notes, "The same figure is given in the current Estimates, page 225," so I am on common ground with the Civil Lord. When I want to get ahead full speed, with all boilers alight and both engines going, the Civil Lord, of all people, makes that idiotic remark. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) made the statement last night. Is it necessary to tell me twice the elementary facts of life about naval affairs?
This £5 5s. a week is 15s. per day for unlimited hours up to 24. Fortunately, there are no more than 24 hours in a day, or he could be called upon for duty for even a longer day, so the hours' factor does not come into it. Generally, they are watch on deck and stop on; not watch on deck and watch below.
That brings to my mind the efforts which we made before the First World War in Devonport Barracks. This is not in my notes! In those days the commodore of the barracks saw everyone entitled to leave at the end of his first period of twelve years. One day he had a stoker up before him. The commodore—"Tin Eye" Wemyss—used to open his eye and drop the tin eye down. It rang a bell when it hit a button on his coat. He had it adjusted for that purpose. "Tin Eye" said to the stoker, "My good man, you have been in the Navy for twelve or more years?" The reply was, "Yes,

Sir". "Tin Eye" said, "You have got a very good character". The reply was, "Yes, Sir". "Tin Eye" said, "And you are going to leave? Why not take on? There is a pension".
The commodore went on and on and the stoker got more and more "fed up" with him. The stoker was not conceding anything. He then said to the stoker, "What are you going to do outside?"

Mr. Doughty: Become a Member of Parliament.

Commander Pursey: Even that is not original, because it was said last night.
The stoker said, "I am going to have a cart and two donkeys and I am going to do the rounds". So the commodore said, "Why do you want two donkeys with one cart?" The stoker replied, "Because I am going to work them watch on and watch off"—in other words, watch on deck and watch below—"not like I have been worked in this blank-blank regiment, watch on deck and stop on".
This 15s. per day is the rate for the men who defend this country and numerous other commitments entered into by this Government when the Government claim that we are in an affluent society and that the average wage is above £10 per week. The Service man's pay is only half that of his relations and neighbours in "civvy" street.

Sir Douglas Glover: Plus his keep.

Commander Pursey: That position is bad enough without the Government making it any worse by high rent increases, increased National Health Service charges, and Welfare State charges for wives and children, if not for the man in all cases. Most of them affect the Service man indirectly, if not directly.
According to my board school education and arithmetic, which was always good on money when I was getting only 6d. a day, but I am quite prepared to be corrected by the other side on arithmetic, a 2½ per cent. loss on £5 5s. a week is 2s. 7d. a week.

Sir D. Glover: Correct.

Commander Pursey: Somebody said, "Good". I know that the Tory Party supports these cuts.

Sir D. Glover: I said, "Correct", not "Good".

Commander Porsey: I thank the hon. Gentleman. A 2½ per cent. loss on 15s. per day is 4½d. per day—not 4½. per hour, but 4½d. per day. Do the Tory affluent Government refuse to pay the trained man in the Service the paltry sum of 4½d. per day, or half-a-crown a week, to which they admit that all these men are wholly entitled?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devonport is not in her seat tonight. When I challenged her last night to give these figures to the Committee, she said:
I understand that, in general, those employed by the Admiralty are not so fussy about the pause, but they are worried about their pensions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March. 1962; Vol. 655, c. 1442.]
Not so fussy? This is a new one on me, fifty years man and boy, about pay. But we live and learn from the Tories—and I hope that the Western Morning News and the Western Evening Herald will publish these remarks. I do not know what generals the hon. Lady has consulted but, because of the limited time—

Sir D. Glover: There are two hours yet.

Commander Pursey: —I will simply say, "Tell that to the Marines because the matelots will not 'wear' it. "We have had ten years of Tory Government, with the hoardings shouting" Conservative Freedom Works". Do the Government now really admit that we have reached the dire straits when they must refuse hundreds and thousands of Service men the sum of 4½d. a day to which they are, admittedly, entitled? Is that what hon. Gentlemen opposite support? Why are they not intervening now?

Sir D. Glover: What was the pay in 1950?

Commander Pursey: I know what it was then. We are not discussing 1950, but 1962. One of the first things that the Labour Government did when they took office in 1945, in spite of the financial crisis after the worst war we had ever gone through, was to deal well with Service pay, particularly with old-age pensions, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not do.
What is the national position today? The flagrant display of wealth is greater now than at any previous time. Fortunes are made overnight in take-over bids—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting rather wide of these Estimates.

Commander Pursey: Hon. Gentlemen opposite with business connections spend more than five guineas on a single meal.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will restrict his remarks to the Estimates.

Commander Pursey: Nevertheless, they support the Government's niggardly policy of denying the Service men this meagre 4½d. a day to which they are fully entitled. The Government's object is perfectly obvious; to undermine the standard of living of the working and middle classes, just as the Tories did in 1931 when they undermined the numerous hire-purchase commitments of Service men.
Dissatisfaction with the pay pause and other serious Tory delinquencies has been expressed in the recent by-elections at Lincoln, Blackpool, Middlesbrough and by yesterday's crowning defeat of the Tories at Orpington. The writing is on the wall for the Government. Stand not on the order of going, but go—and the Service men's votes will help to decide the next General Election as they did in the Labour success of 1945.
Years ago the Service and dockyard voters decided the ins and outs of Liberal and Conservative candidates in the naval ports. Next year the Service and ex-Service voters, the old-age pensioners and the other under-privileged people will decide in the General Election to oust this irresponsible Tory Government which have no concern for equity or the welfare of the common man on whom the future of the country depends.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to remember that we have well contented men in the Service who are reasonably rewarded and very well trained. The very fact that two out of every three sign on to continue their service in the Royal Navy surely shows that they are content with the conditions that now exist. When


the White Paper is published the hon. and gallant Gentleman wild see that the rewards ace mot unreasonable, but are commensurate with the cost of living. Not only have we contented men in the Navy, but there are "characters", even today, both on the lower deck and on the quarter deck, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman met in his time.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE

10.1 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Fiduciary Note Issue (Extension of Period) Order, 1962 (S.I. 1962, No. 395), dated 26th February, 1962. a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be annulled.
The waters into which we now move are, perhaps, less stormy but they are somewhat difficult to navigate. The Motion concerns one of a succession of Orders made under Section 2 (7) of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1954. The Act provided that the amount of notes in circulation should be the sum of the gold coin and gold bullion for the time being in the Issue Department of the Bank plus the amount of the fiduciary note issue as determined by the Act.
What the Act provided was that there should be a statutory figure, without any Order, of £1,575 million and that that could be added to by Treasury minutes from time to time, that those Treasury minutes should each have a duration not exceeding six months, but might be renewed and that the power to issue the minutes and, accordingly, to raise the statutory limit was to remain in force only for two years, but, at the end of two years, could be renewed by an Order. It is one of those renewing Orders that we are discussing tonight.
When considering the Order, I am entitled to consider what has been happening under the preceding similar Order. There are two points about it

which puzzle me and which I ask the Economic Secretary to be kind enough to deal with in reply. I see that in May and June, 1960, the amount of Bank of England notes outstanding, according to Table 142 in the Monthly Digest, was £2,250 million plus £400,000. Those notes were partly in circulation and partly in the Banking Department. There seems to be no reasonable doubt that they were issued.
The authorised limit at the time was £2,250 million and accordingly the authorised limit, so far as it depended on the provisions of the Act, was exceeded by £400,000. Exactly the same happened tin February, 1961, with the same figures, both as to the amount of notes in issue and also as to the authorised limit at the time.
There used to be a considerable amount of coin or bullion in the Issue Department, but, to quote words of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance but who at the time, in 1953, was Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
Since 1939, the gold reserves of the Bank have not been kept in the Issue Department, except to a very trifling extent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1323.]
One does not know, of course, what is very trifling in the eyes of the Bank of England. To me, at any rate, £400,000 is quite a large sum and more than a very trifling amount.
If one turns to the Radcliffe Report on "The Working of the Monetary System" and the memorandum from the Bank of England, one finds the same thing said, that
the whole of the gold reserve held in the Issue Department (except for a token amount) was transferred to the Exchange Equalisation Account
and that is given as the reason why the fiduciary issue had to be raised to a level virtually equal to the total note issue and why it became necessary to make frequent changes, as have in fact been made in the past two years, in the amount of the fiduciary issue.
My first question, therefore, is: what is the justification for the excess £400,000? If I have the figures right, is this what is called a very trifling extent or, in the words of the Governor of the Bank, a token amount? My


tokens are not worth nearly so much, but perhaps the Bank of England is in a different position.
I come now to my next question. Section 2 of the 1954 Act provides for the directions given by the Treasury, not, of course, the Order we are considering now but the effective directions which are made by the Treasury from time to time. They are dealt with by subsection (9) in these terms:
A direction under this section shall be given by a minute of the Treasury which shall be laid before Parliament.
I think that we may take it that it was the view of the House at the time, as it was the view of members of the Radcliffe Committee, that the amount in question is of some importance. I have here the various directions which have been issued. There are two to which I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention. The first is headed, "Copy of Treasury Minute dated 28th August, 1961, relative to the Fiduciary Note Issue", and it is signed at Treasury Chambers, 17th October, 1961, "Edward Boyle". That is a very long interval after the issue of the minute. Moreover, when one turns overleaf—these are single sheet documents and there is no question of misbinding or anything of that sort—one finds on the back not a Treasury minute dated 28th August, 1961, but a Treasury minute dated 19th September, 1961.
From that, one continues to the next in the series, and the sheet is headed, "Copy of Treasury minute dated 19th September, 1961, relative to the Fiduciary Note Issue". It appears to have been signed by the same person in the same place on the same date, 17th October, 1961, which perhaps is not quite so unreasonable for a direction issued on 19th September. Turning to the back of it—I say again that these are single-sheet documents—one finds the missing link, Treasury minute dated 28th August, 1961.
These are documents of importance. They have to be laid before Parliament. When I go to the Library to obtain copies, these are two of the documents which emerge from the search. The conclusion to which I come is that someone in a Government Department made a slip and never bothered to correct it,

and that two documents, separated by about a month in their original form, do not appear to have been signed until about a month after the date of the later of them, and then laid before Parliament in a most misleading and inaccurate form.
That is not the way in which matters of this importance should be treated, and I shall be glad to hear the Economic Secretary's explanation of what happened and as to why, if there was an error, it was not corrected. I will now hand the hon. Gentleman the Treasury minutes in question.
That relates to particular points in the use made of these powers. I now turn to a rather broader matter. Looking at the operative documents issued under the power which we are asked to renew tonight, we find that there are, as one would expect, very marked seasonal variations in the note issue—a fairly sharp rise during the holiday season between July and August and another rise in December. But, allowing for those variations and tracing the curve as a whole, there is a steady rise since the last Order was made with effect from 14th March, 1960.
I should like the Economic Secretary to explain how this fits in with another figure. However, before I deal with that, I wish to quote what the Economic Secretary said on 5th April, 1960, namely, that the note issue represents
a remarkably constant proportion to the size of the money national income… banknotes are… the small change of the monetary system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, I960; Vol. 621. c. 343–4.]
That is exactly what one would expect. But this rise has continued over the past two years, apparently, so far as I can judge from the figures, completely unaffected by any of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures.
On the other hand, if we compare it with another figure which appears to be the correct figure with which it should be compared, namely, that for national production, national production was almost exactly the same when the two-year Order was last introduced as it was in the autumn last year, which is the latest date for which figures are available. Adjusted seasonally, it was 112 in March and April, 1960, when the Order was introduced, and again 112 in October and


December, 1961. Moreover, during June to August, 1961, it rose by three or four points, but has since fallen.
The result is that the note issue is completely out of line with national production and, apparently, with any measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: For the benefit of the House, could the hon. and learned Gentleman relate the figures to national income as opposed to national production?

Mr. Mitchison: It is harder to relate them to national income, but I think that the note issue corresponds with the national income much more closely than it does with national production. It appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures have had no effect on and apparently have made no difference to the national income. All that they have done is to bring down production, keeping it down to what it was a couple of years ago, or to bring it down from the figure which it reached in the interval. That is the conclusion which I draw.
I turn to what the House will be glad to hear is my last point. However, before doing so, I should deal with the evidence of the Bank of England, and particularly of Mr. Cobbold, who was its Governor at the time, before the Radcliffe Committee. Mr. Cobbold said—and I had better quote his own words—
The size of the note circulation is very important. … I regard the size of the note issue as a barometer of the success or failure of the authorities and a very important barometer but not as a weapon in their hands.
This was in answer to Question 1759 in the Committee's Report.
I would respectfully agree with that, and if the conclusion which I am asking the Economic Secretary to comment on is right, the barometer appears to show that while the national income and the note circulation went up together, production, on the contrary, either stayed put or fell according to the period over which one takes it. When we are told that the note issue is the barometer of the success or failure of the authorities, I would say that that is a barometer which would require someone much better versed than I am in these matters to read with any effective accuracy.
We have to consider at the end of the proceedings today whether we push this Motion to a Division and we have to fact the issue of what is likely to happen if the Prayer succeeds. This is a question that appears to have puzzled Government spokesmen for some time. In introducing the then Bill and in referring to the points which we are discussing today in the 1954 Act, as it became, the right hon. Gentleman the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
… the lower we place it "—
that is, the statutory limit of £1,575 million—
the greater degree of control we leave in the hands of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1378]
We must, therefore, assume that in the view of the Government, at any rate at that time, we had some effective control over what is done about this. I am not sure that we have.
Then considering the question which I have been asking today, the right hon. Gentleman the then Financial Secretary, commented on 26th January, 1954, that it was perfectly clear that the consequences of the annulment of an Order of this kind
might be highly inconvenient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1954; Vol. 522, c. 1691.]
I do not think that the Government of the day ought to fob us off like that. I should like to know what the consequences would be if we exercised the degree of control that the right hon. Gentleman hoped would be left in the hands of the House and we exercised it effectively by having the Order annulled.
Am I to be told that the answer is that the Government would issue an exactly similar Order next day? I should regard that as conduct more contemptuous of Parliament than even this Government are accustomed to. I have looked at the 1954 Act and I have had little guidance there. I come to the conclusion, quite obviously, that both the Governor of the Bank of England and, nowadays at any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be put in the Tower immediately. That is the least that we could do in the circumstances. I agree that when we are approaching the annual Budget that would be highly inconvenient. It would be a form of purdah which would be new to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


But is that all? What would happen to our bank notes? I have been searching everywhere to find the answer. I am a little reassured—and it is the only place where I could find any reassurance—by the words of a well-known author called Puffendorf who in his "Law of Nature and Nations" wrote:
The law itself may be disannulled by the author,"—
I suppose that we are the authors—
but the right acquired by virtue of that law whilst in force must still remain; for together with a law to take away all its precedent effects would be a high piece of injustice.
In the circumstances, I hope that, resting on Puffendorf, I may have in my bank notes, if I happen to have any at the time, a little more confidence than I would have without recourse to that learned and distinguished author.
All the same, it is a very queer way—and here I am being serious—of giving Parliament control over a matter of some considerable importance to present us every two years with an Order without telling us how it is to be exercised in the interval, and with the threat hanging over us that if, by any chance, we exercise control and annul the Order, something too dreadful for words will happen.
The Government are acting as a sort of bogyman in this. They have the most awful consequences in mind—so horrible that they dare not tell us what they are. I am almost forced to the conclusion that not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer but also the Financial and Economic Secretaries might suffer the most grievous capital gains if we carried this matter to a conclusion.

10.20 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Those who attend these debates are usually few, but fit. There seem to be fewer tonight than ever, but no doubt, having listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman, they are fitter than usual. I remember past debates on this subject, particularly one conducted by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), which did not seem to me to be anywhere near the point, whereas tonight the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed himself to it most clearly and directly.
I set the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind at rest on one point. He has referred

to the fiduciary note issue as a barometer and, therefore, he is very tempted to use the barometer as a ring gauge. The fiduciary issue is a measure of the loose change in the banking system. The exact parallel to the rise in the fiduciary issue is the graph of average earnings, and I can arrange for the hon. and learned Gentleman to see a graph where there is an exact parallel line on which these two things are plotted, with the average weekly earnings on one side and the size of the fiduciary issue at Christmas—its highest point—on the other. That may be some solution.

Mr. Mitchison: I will save the hon. Gentleman the trouble. I have done half of it for myself.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. and learned Gentleman has done a great deal for himself, and a great deal for us, too.
There is no mystery about the fiduciary note issue. It is a requirement of the system. He has posed the question of what would happen if this Motion were to succeed. I hope that no hon. Member is being kept from his bed by fear of that disaster. As I work it out, the fiduciary issue at the moment is about £2,376 million, and the permitted figure, as we know, is £1,575 million. So, if the Prayer were to succeed, £801 million of notes would have to be withdrawn from circulation.
I worked it out, and I based myself on the most recent Bank Rate, but was not able to get the most up-to-date version of the Monthly Digest of Statistics—no doubt because the hon. and learned Gentleman was working on it himself. Basing myself on the latest bank returns, I worked out that there is the £800 million or so I have mentioned, plus about £406 million which is the cash bankers have in their own tills and £63 million in cash held by the Bank of England. This makes a total of £469 million in cash. In addition to that, the banks have £247 million on deposit at the Bank of England. These three figures come to a total of £715 million, and, therefore, there will be a deficiency of £85 million.
I suppose that if we could order every man in the country, or every wage earner, to forward by express post the


sum of £5 in notes, if all were equally law-abiding and in a position to pay, they would cover that deficiency, but I hope that, in considering his reply to the Prayer, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will not rely too much on the ability of the Post Office to deliver these registered letters at the right time, because we might find ourselves held up by the pools, and in that case very serious consequences;, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out to us, would follow.
We should find ourselves in the position of having to run our lives with no small change at all, and that would seem to be a great improvement for the prospect of introducing cheques. I can see no other great advantage in it. I suppose that we have departed from the rather unsophisticated days when Governments, hell-bent on inflation, did it by printing notes, but I feel that this Order still reminds us that, though those days have long past, they are still not forgotten We do right to remind ourselves, perhaps once every two years, that the temptation to print notes is one on which we must keep a check, and I can only wish that the Order we are considering tonight were capable of preventing the Government, if in trouble, from having recourse to the printing press. If it were so, we should be doing a really useful service, but it is not, and it is, therefore, merely an academic exercise.

Mr. Iremonger: Will my hon. Friend explain one point to me? As he rightly said, restraining the Government in the printing of notes does not have any effect on the demand on resources—purchasing power. Would it not be true to say that if, in fact, the House did have a power to restrain the Government in the issue of Treasury bills, which, working through the banking system, do increase liquidity and the ability of the banks to make advances, then the House would have a direct control on the inflationary tap which it does not have at the moment?

Sir H. d'Avigdor Goldsmid: My hon. Friend is evidently fully versed in these matters.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The points which I had it in mind to

raise have probably been covered by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and I look forward to reading what he had to say when I see the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.
Perhaps I may also put this point. The only outstanding matter which I should like to put to the Economic Secretary is that I happen to have two of these Treasury minutes, one dated 4th January, 1962, and the other dated 11th January, 1962. If a glance at the very large figures that are included in the two Orders gives me the correct information, there is a little matter of £50 million difference between the two Orders. As there is only a matter of a week between them, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to explain to me why it is that we have to have Orders in consecutive weeks.

10.29 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I will do my best to answer the several points put to me by various hon. Members. As I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made clear at the outset of his speech, the purpose of the Order that we are now considering is to extend for a further two years the powers of the Treasury to increase, by direction and on the recommendation of the Bank of England, the amount of the fiduciary issue over the limit, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, laid down in the Act of 1954.
It is now two years since we had a debate on this subject in the House. At the risk of seeming patronising, I hope I can say that I think the House of Commons is becoming increasingly well versed in the technicalities of the matter, though I thought that at one or two moments I detected a point which had been raised on previous occasions.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked whether it really was true that the extent of the fiduciary note issue was in any sense a barometer of economic activity. It has been said in the past by many people—some of whom, I would have thought, ought to know better—that the fiduciary issue is an important economic indicator. I think that this may well have been so at one time, but I should be inclined to


agree with what I thought was the sense of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that today this is no longer true.
There are two reasons for this. First, we have now a great many other economic indicators of one kind or another which are far more important—the index of production, statistics relating to employment, indexes of retail sales, investment expenditure, and so on.
Secondly, while I would agree that the proportion which the total money supply—that is, the volume of bank deposits plus cash—bears to the national income is very important, and also that the volume of cash—which normally has a fixed relation to the total money supply—is a significant component of that supply, nevertheless the volume of the note issue is purely a reflection of the public's demand for cash.
The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). Consequently, as an indicator, the amount of the fiduciary note issue indicates solely the volume and proportion of assets which persons and companies decide at any particular time to hold in the form of cash.
The Bank of England supplies to the clearing banks all the notes which its customers want to hold. This quantity varies according to the demands of such things as holidays and other seasonal events which affect the need of persons and companies to hold more or less cash than normal.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of barometers, I was only quoting the former Governor of the Bank of England—Mr. Cobbold as he then was—who said that the size of the note circulation is very important and that he regarded it as a barometer of the success or failure of the authorities.

Mr. Barber: I did not want to weary the House by quoting from what Lord Cobbold said to the Radcliffe Committee, but on the last occasion when this subject was debated I quoted from an observation by the Governor in which he said that "this does not alter the fact that the present rôle of the Issue Department in the supply of currency is

passave". This seems to me to be an important and, indeed, overwhelming consideration when one is trying to ascertain what, if any, significance the level of the fiduciary note issue has. What I am saying is that all it does is to indicate, as it were, the amount of cash, or what my lion. Friend referred to as "small change", which at any particular time individuals and companies wish to hold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. God man Irvine) referred to the fact that between 4th and 11th January this year the fiduciary note issue fell from £2,425 million to £2,375 million.
Although I have not had an opportunity to consider the matter at leisure, I think that this was merely a reflection of the fact that following the activities which preceded and followed Christmas individuals and companies did not require so much cash to carry out their transactions.
If I may take a slightly wider bracket, on 12th December, 1961—that is a few weeks before Christmas—the note issue stood at £2,475 million, I think the highest that the figure has ever stood, and this was because of the coming of Christmas. By 19th January, 1962, it had fallen to £2,325 million. The figures which my hon. Friend gave, and those which I gave, reflect the seasonal demand for cash.
I thought that at one point in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering I detected a suggestion that somehow the amount of the note issue in circulation was some evidence of inflation. I do not think that he would go so far as to say that it was a direct cause of inflation, because I do not think that anybody would hold that view, but if the volume of cash is related generally to the total volume of money, being the volume of bank deposits plus cash, then, if total incomes increase as a result, for instance, of increases in population and increases in real wealth, so, also, will the supply of cash increase, along with the supply of money generally.
I am told by those who study these matters that the size of the note issue in recent years has borne a remarkably constant proportion to the size of the national income, and I think that this is the result one would expect, taking the view, as my hon. Friend the Member for


Walsall, South said, that bank notes are really the small change of the monetary system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred to the possibility of a Government as it were having recourse to the printing press to get out of their difficulties. He is right. There is no doubt that, in theory, it is possible for a Government to use their note-issuing powers as a means of deliberately inflating the money supply for their own purposes, and this has been done in other countries. Even though I think it is generally agreed that no Government in sight at the present time is likely to use their note-issuing powers in dangerous ways, it is important that there should exist some parliamentary control over this theoretical risk of abuse by an executive of its powers.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: My point was that this Order gives Parliament no control whatever in this matter.

Mr. Barber: If, by joining the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, my hon. Friend means that dire consequences would follow if this Prayer were to succeed, in that sense it is true that those who look at this matter with responsibility and appreciate the consequences which would follow have less control than they might otherwise have.
On the other hand, this gives the House of Commons the opportunity every other year to consider the matter, and I have not the slightest doubt that if the Government of the day were to print bank notes simply for their own purposes—the sort of fears which my hon. Friend had in mind—this debate would perhaps loom larger than it does now.
The hon. and learned Member asked what would happen if the Prayer were to succeed. If it succeeded, the Bank of England might not be able to supply the clearing banks with the notes required by their customers, and this would lead either to increased use of cheques, bankers' drafts, postal orders and other means of payment, or else to a run on the banks, if nothing were done about it. There can be no question of trying to

control the volume of money—deposits plus cash—by saying that people who want to withdraw some or all of their bank balances should not be able to obtain banknotes to the value of their credit balances.
Two specific points were raised by the hon. and learned Member. He suggested that the legal limit of the fiduciary note issue was exceeded in May, 1960, and February, 1961. As he no doubt came to this conclusion late this evening, and had no opportunity of giving me notice that he would raise the point, all I can tell him is that, so far as I have been able to ascertain—although I am pretty sure that it is the case—the note issue in circulation has never exceeded the limit set by the Act and by the Treasury minutes. Having said that, perhaps I may be allowed to look into the matter a little further in order to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman and explain the reasons which have led me to that conclusion.
His other point concerned two Treasury minutes laid before Parliament under Section 2 (9) of the 1954 Act. He said that they were laid on 17th October, 1961, although they related to what had taken place a considerable time before. Here again, without notice it is difficult to be sure of the explanation, and I put this forward only as a possibility: it may be that it was because on 28th August and 19th September—the two dates to which he referred—the House was in recess. On the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman is always very fair, and I will tell him that I think that that fact should have not have precluded us from laying the minutes.

Mr. Mitchison: There is another point—the front of the Order describes the back quite wrongly.

Mr. Barber: It seems very clear to me. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to write to me on that point.
At any rate, as I think it is abundantly clear from the course of the debate that the matter of the fiduciary note issue is increasingly well understood in this


House, I hope that the House will accept the Order, and that the Prayer will be withdrawn.

Mr. Mitchison: Not because of any financial purpose, but in order to save

the life and liberty of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Economic Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MILK SALES (HALF-PINT BOTTLES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily at this late hour, but the matter I wish to raise is one of some importance to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). It concerns the delivery of milk, retail, in half-pint bottles.
I remember when milk used to be delivered at my home in the morning, having been taken from the cow that same morning, and in the evening after having been taken from the cow in the afternoon. I admit that that is going back over many years. The war came along after that. Steps were taken to eliminate the necessity for several milkmen to visit one street, and in order to bring about more efficiency the retailers of milk came to a common agreement. But we have now reached a rather serious situation, which, to some extent, is affecting most of the country. It is the refusal to supply milk in half-pint bottles.
I live in my constituency and I continue to get milk delivered by the Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society. But already the Express Dairies has stopped delivering milk in half-pint bottles in West Yorkshire. It is serious because the dairy has a monopoly. When I have inquired why other milk suppliers do not come into the district I have been told that there is a gentleman's agreement, and so the customers are at the mercy of the larger suppliers.
I am all in favour of having a pint of milk a day. But we must bear in mind that pensioners and people with very limited incomes, including spinsters, cannot afford to buy a pint a day. The suppliers suggest that they should buy a pint of milk every other day. If the milk is to be delivered every two days, it will be at least sixty hours old. I think that that is very unfair. To take

the argument to a logical conclusion, why not stop using pint bottles and deliver the milk in quart bottles? The argument about increased efficiency would hold good and there would probably be more profit for the supplier.
I attended a large meeting of pensioners and I have spoken to the dairy people who argued about the loss of bottles and the question of cost. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that the pensioners and others are becoming very militant over this matter. That is why, having asked Questions on the subject, I thought that it should be debated in this Chamber.
I have received a number of letters in connection with this matter, and an indication of the intensity of feeling on the subject is revealed by the fact that in Nottinghamshire thousands of women have banded together to fight this pernicious system. I received a letter from a milk dealer who wrote:
On reading the article in the Yorkshire. Evening Post re the stopping of half-pint bottles of milk I was delighted to hear of your concern. I have recently bought a milk business in Outwood and am greatly concerned, along with my colleagues, in this area about the whole business. We approached Craven Dairies. Leeds, to supply us with milk but much to our dismay they told us that they have a gentleman's agreement not to deliver into this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley are interested in this matter. I am informed that the Ossett Borough Council, the Dewsbury Borough Council, the Normanton Urban District Council, the Dewsbury Trades Council, the Spen Valley Trades Council, the Ossett Chamber of Trade, and the South-West Federation of Townswomens' Guilds, which includes 24 guilds with 2,000 members, and a number of welfare organisations in the area, are concerned.
Where do we go from there? I have received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary telling me that we could not debate the legality of selling milk in one-third pint bottles in this debate. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that note. What he says is quite true, but I hope that he will do what he can to expedite the introduction of new weights and measures legislation to make that possible.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what we can do. As it is, we are in the grip of a large monopoly. If the Government were to subsidise the pensioners and the spinsters so as to enable them to buy a pint of milk a day, I would have no objection. If the retailers were prepared to reduce the price, I am sure that the people concerned would take a pint of milk each day. As it is, in very many cases they have very limited incomes and are flatly told that they have to buy their milk a pint at a time or go without.
Many of these people cannot afford refrigerators, and that means that in the summer time the milk they buy goes sour. The milk we get today is not altogether fresh; in some cases, it is 24 hours or 48 hours old when it is delivered. If the present situation is allowed to continue it will be a very serious matter for the people for whom I am speaking, and anybody interested in public service should take cognisance of it.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Normamton (Mr. A. Roberts). The action of Express Dairies (Northern) Ltd., in discontinuing half-pint milk bottling has caused very grave concern in my constituency. Like my hon. Friend, I have received numerous protests on the subject. I have had representations from the council of the county borough of Dewsbury, from the mayor of Ossett, on behalf of old people's welfare organisations, from the Dewsbury Youth Council, from old people's welfare organisations in Dewsbury, and from the local milk retailers as well. Those representations are on an all-party basis.
The issue is a very serious and human one. Whilst statistics do not give the full pictude, it is worth pointing out that according to the Ministry of Labour's figures the average pensioner spends about 3s. 5d. per week on milk. Therefore, to the average pensioner, the ending of half-pint bottling is not an academic matter. It is very regrettable that Express Dairies (Northern) Ltd. took this action unilaterally and without prior consultation with the organisations in the area. However, I am pleased to say that the firm has recently responded to the

considerable local and national pressure that has arisen, and, according to a letter I have just received from the Town Clerk of Dewsbury, it has agreed to supply milk in half-pint measures in cartons for the summer months at 5d. per half-pint. The prospect of this debate has, there-fore, already served a very useful purpose.
The picture is still not yet wholly satisfactory. Even if we allow for the price concession made by the milk retailers to old-age pensioners of three half-pints of milk to be charged at the price for a pint and then of a half-pint, the supply of milk in cartons in the summer months will cost pensioners another 6d. per week, to which must be added another 2½d. or 3d. as a result of the increased milk prices announced today. An extra 9d. a week is quite a substantial amount for pensioners to have to pay.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has said, I hope that this debate will prevent any piecemeal attack by the milk companies, area by area and constituency by constituency, aimed at ending half-pint bottling.
The Minister can help in this matter. He can use his influence, especially with the Milk Marketing Board, and with the chemical and packaging companies, to explore the possibility of using non-returnable cartons, perhaps of a plastic kind which, if manufactured on a much larger and national scale and not purely a local or constituency scale, could be substantially cheaper than the cartons which are promised for the summer months.
Finally, as my hon. Friend said, the Minister could legalise the ⅓ pint, which is available to schools, but is not a legal measure at the moment because of the delay over the Weights and Measures Bill. This debate has served a useful purpose. It has indicated the value of pressure of this kind. It has also shown that there are positive steps which the Minister can take. I hope that he will say something about it this evening.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: My hon. Friends are to be congratulated on raising a matter which may seem small but which is important to a certain section of the community. As my


hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) said, the danger is that we may be in the grip of a large monopoly which may become indifferent to the needs of pensioners and people who could be affected by the cessation of half-pint milk bottling. One of the great privileges of the House is that the hon. Members can on the Adjournment raise matters which affect human beings. These questions may not seem to people outside the House to be political issues, but my hon. Friends have raised a question which should be examined.
I hope that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Ginsburg) will be followed up. An approach should be made to the Milk Marketing Board and to the chemical and packaging companies. They could do something about this. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic, because we think that this is an important issue. I know that the Minister will be sympathetic, because I know him as an individual. I hope we shall have a satisfactory answer.

10.57 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) was very courteous. He told me in advance the gist of the argument he wanted to deploy this evening. This has not only made it easier for me to reply, but has also made the debate much more valuable, because he has raised an important issue. Here I shall declare my interest. I not only sell milk. I also drink it. I hope that there is nothing which prevents all people, old and young, from drinking as much as they want.
The supply of milk in half-pints has been raised at Question Time on a number of occasions. It is in some areas a matter of great concern. It is a wider question than that of any particular area. It is on this basis that I should like it to be considered this evening.
The hon. Member for Normanton made a plea particularly on behalf of retirement pensioners and others living alone who want to buy only half-a-pint of milk at a time but find themselves unable to do so. That is the gist of his

case. I am sure that we all agree with the hon. Gentleman about this. At various times we have all, when we have been alone in London, experienced the same difficulty. Either we cannot get half a pint of milk, or we get more and waste it, which is part of the difficulty the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
We must none the less preserve a sense of proportion, because it is not the case that half-pints are unobtainable everywhere. Many dairymen are willing to supply them, either to all their customers or to those whom they know are in special need of this service and will take it regularly. On the other hand, sometimes a dairyman finds it uneconomic to supply half-pints of ordinary pasteurised milk, but is willing to supply the T.T. or the homogenised milks, which are slightly more expensive. I certainly would not deny that in some places it is difficult or impossible to buy half-pints, but this is by no means the situation in all parts of the country. Although I gather that in one particular area there has been some difficulty, we hope that that difficulty will be less by next summer.
As the hon. Member for Normanton said, the extent of the problem depends on whether or not one has a means of keeping milk fresh a day or two longer if one must buy it in a larger quantity. There is, too, the question of convenience. Some people find it just as easy to buy their milk in larger quantities, while others do not. It is undoubtedly becoming more rare to find this truly difficult situation because, as the result of the care taken in handling milk at all stages and modern techniques of heat-treatment, the keeping quality of pasteurised milk has improved. The hon. Member spoke about throwing milk out after 24 or 48 hours, but the keeping quality of milk today is better than it was when it was taken straight from the homely cow into a jug and straight to one's doorstep which, although it did not help the milk to keep fresh, enabled people to buy it in any quantity they desired. As I say, the modern techniques, with heat-treatment, certainly improve the keeping quality of milk, and there is no doubt that ordinary pasteurised milk, as sold, should keep for two days.
The National Institute for Research in Dairying, when I visited their establishment some time ago, showed me a bottle of milk that had been bottled ten years previously.

Mr. Peart: Did you taste it?

Mr. Vane: It looked all right, although they did not offer it to me to taste. Nonetheless, new techniques and continuing experimentation have undoubtedly improved the keeping quality of milk, and sterilised milk keeps considerably longer than ordinary milk. I appreciate that it is not obtainable everywhere and that not everyone likes the slight difference in taste. I mention this to show once again how modern methods of handling are steadily improving the keeping quality of the milk which is delivered to us.
The National Dairymen's Association advise that if the milk delivered does not keep as it should the householder should complain to the dairyman because he is just as interested in his customers as any responsible trader should be. The hon. Member for Norman ton mentioned the special difficulties for retirement pensioners. The problem here is really the same with many people who live alone or, perhaps, those who are carefully counting their pennies and are not anxious to buy something which will go to waste. This is by no means the problem of the elderly, but one for many people who live alone.
When referring to the problems of the pensioner it should be remembered that the National Food Survey did not show any substantial difference in the average quantity of milk drunk by the elderly as against those of us who are still a bit younger. The hon. Member has spoken mainly from the consumer's angle and criticised the decision of one of the dairy firms serving his constituency to discontinue the supply of half-pints.

Mr. A. Roberts: This one dairy company is affecting the whole of southwest Yorkshire; the Express Dairies.

Mr. Vane: I was coming to that. He has spoken of a monopoly and has just again reinforced his earlier argument regarding the influence of one firm over a large area as creating a wide measure of inconvenience for a great many

people. I hope I am not disappointing the hon. Member by saying that if he has any evidence of what he calls a monopoly—although I think he used the word in a general sense and not in a technical one—he should send the information to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who will then be able to decide whether there is a prima facie case for reference to the Monopolies Commission. That is the purpose of that organisation. The hon. Member will not expect me to prejudge a situation of that nature; it would be wrong to do so. There is, however, machinery for dealing with the situation and for dealing with what the hon. Member called "gentlemen's agreements", which have to be registered with the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.
In contrast to what I have just said, which is in a sense critical, milk distributors have a fine record of service. I do not suppose that there is any other country in Europe, possibly in the world, where the dairy industry provides a better service throughout. It is alive to its responsibilities and, like any business, alive to the interests and requirements of its customers. When the industry does not supply half-pints, whether by wholesale or by retail, whether by delivery or, perhaps, in the shops if somebody cares to fetch the milk, there must be some difficulty in the way of doing so.
Let us consider the viewpoint of the industry. There has been a rapid advance in mechanisation of this business over recent years and nowadays bottling is customarily done by fairly complicated machinery. To switch from filling pints to filling half-pints can be a costly operation. The hon. Member spoke about cartons and different types of containers. We would all be anxious to see milk delivered in the most convenient form. We would not discourage or stand in the way of someone who wanted to do something novel but none the less practical. That, however, is purely a matter for the trade, because we do not stipulate the container in which the milkman should deliver his milk, provided that it does not offend against the various regulations.
It may be that where the number of half-pints in demand is not numerous, a change to half-pints could create great


disruption of the bottling processes. The hon. Member suggested that we might soon have milk in quart or larger bottles. I was speaking this evening to somebody back from Canada who said that it was normal there to have three quart bottles a week in the household. It was assumed, however, that everybody had some form of refrigerator in which to keep it, and I believe that people have to fetch the milk. That is quite different from the form of service to which we are accustomed in this country.
I am told that the machinery of which I was speaking can fill 400 bottles a minute. The time involved in the changeover to half-pint bottles can therefore be an expensive matter. We must recognise that as with other commodities, if consumers in general are to get the full benefit of the economies which modernisation, mechanisation and streamlined processes offer, they must accept some measure of standardisation. They gain in one way, but perhaps they lose a little in another way.
On the retail side, it costs virtually as much to deliver half-pints as to deliver pint bottles. The difference in cost is very small. None the less, I would not argue that the demand of the few for a special service—in this case, those who prefer half-pints—should necessarily be sacrificed. It happens all too often nowadays that the interests of the few somehow get sacrificed to the preferences of the many.
This is a matter in which all the considerations must be weighed one against the other. The individual distributor knows the circumstances of his business, the interests of his customers and the extra costs of meeting their special interests. In the end, he is the only person who can say whether any particular variation of the service is worth while and who can make the decision.
I am sure that the hon. Member would like me to say where the Government come in in all this. The Government have no power to force a dairyman to deliver half-pints or bottles of any other size. In fact, they have no power to force a dairyman to deliver milk at all, or, for that matter, to require the dairyman to stay in the business if he does not want to stay in it. The suggestion that he should be required by law to

carry half-pints or third-pints in order to meet a possible demand from customers is not, I think, reasonable or practical. The present requirement under the existing Statutes is that the retailer shall have his milk in half-pints or multiples of half-pints. The third-pint came into use because of the school milk service and, as yet, is not a legal measure in distribution generally.
Who knows what the future of our weights and measures law may be? In the discussions on the Weights and Measures Bill in another place, there was a proposal to legalise the general sale of milk in third-pint bottles, and perhaps that will come. But that, of course, would be permissive, not mandatory.
The Government are responsible for prescribing the maximum prices of milk as it is normally sold. Vending machines are excepted. Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make his point that the retail price of milk is likely to be slightly increased from, say, this summer onwards, I did not follow his calculations, and I thought that he was putting a worse construction on the situation than it deserved.
There is no provision at present in the price control Orders for a higher price to be charged for milk in smaller quantities. The pint is the quantity which we consider. There may be two opinions about this. The Committee on Milk Distributors' Remuneration under the chairmanship of Sir Guy Thorold, whose Report was published last January, recommended that the Orders should be amended so as to permit a reasonable additional charge to be made for milk sold in small quantities. My right hon. Friend is considering this now along with the other recommendations in the Report. A number of organisations have had to be consulted, and it will be some time yet before decisions can be reached. At present, milk in a half-pint bottle is normally sold at half the price of the larger quantity, even though we must admit that, in proportion, the costs are somewhat greater.
At this stage, I only say that, while it may be reasonable to allow an extra charge to be made for milk sold in small quantities, it should not be too hastily assumed that, as a result, all dairymen would as a matter of course deliver


half-pints, and, of course, in some respects this small additional charge, which could be the outcome, would not necessarily be welcomed by those who are at present enjoying the service of half-pint deliveries at a fractionally lower price. I mention these points to show that it is not as easy a matter as all that, and there are points to be looked at from both sides.
I have referred to the sale of third-pints, and in a letter which I wrote to the hon. Gentleman I tried to show that legislation would be necessary to legalise

the general sale of milk in third-pints. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order if I attempted to discuss that matter further now.
The hon. Gentleman may not feel that the current position is entirely satisfactory, but—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.